New Civil War Scenarios for Future Patches

[Mike Scholl]

"Mike are you saying you can not beat the CSA or are you reading and seeing what is in the game and think that you can not beat them ? This screen shot is from a Union Game I had, on Col with the CSA on +2 power".


No SARGE, that's not what I said. I mearly proposed that as long as they were asking for "scenario suggestions" they do one using their original historic research. One who's perameters were based strictly on history, with no attempt at "balancing it" or making it "more equal". Just as a "challange" for Southern Players who wanted to try something really difficult.

[Gil R.]

What about a post-Gettysburg scenario? That would be quite challenging for the CSA player only, but might be worth doing.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"Mike are you saying you can not beat the CSA or are you reading and seeing what is in the game and think that you can not beat them ? This screen shot is from a Union Game I had, on Col with the CSA on +2 power".


No SARGE, that's not what I said. I mearly proposed that as long as they were asking for "scenario suggestions" they do one using their original historic research. One who's perameters were based strictly on history, with no attempt at "balancing it" or making it "more equal". Just as a "challange" for Southern Players who wanted to try something really difficult.

well, if we go back to the beginning, I think you would find out that the CSA was alot stronger in the beginning, the game balanceing was to make the Union have a chance, plus all the work JC did on the Ecc would be a waste to take out, but the game would be much richer on both sides, but then, the cost of everything was also much higher

which the hassle is, everything you want is already in the options, set the game to play how you want it to play, and it should do so

[captskillet]

The one with the accurate OB and realistic economic assets for both sides. The one everyone complained about because the South "couldn't win". A scenario for the "dyed-in-the-cotten" Rebel Players to really challange themselves with---one with no Southern "freebies" and the North not having to fight with "one hand tied behind it's back". In other words, the "real" ACW.

And I bet you Mike that you will find IT IS impossible for the South to win a completely hist. scenario with a decent Union leader.............if the Union had not been saddled with "Little Mac" throughout much of 1862 (and his equally nitwit cohorts Pope and Burnside) it would/should have ended then (specif. @ Sharpsburg for sure)!

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

The one with the accurate OB and realistic economic assets for both sides. The one everyone complained about because the South "couldn't win". A scenario for the "dyed-in-the-cotten" Rebel Players to really challange themselves with---one with no Southern "freebies" and the North not having to fight with "one hand tied behind it's back". In other words, the "real" ACW.

And I bet you Mike that you will find IT IS impossible for the South to win a completely hist. scenario with a decent Union leader.............if the Union had not been saddled with "Little Mac" throughout much of 1862 (and his equally nitwit cohorts Pope and Burnside) it would/should have ended then (specif. @ Sharpsburg for sure)!

I don't think you'll find a single mention of doing away with the South's leadership advantage in my suggestion. Or even the slight "quality" edge the South had to start with. Just one that starts "basic" with all the advantages/disadvantages both sides faced---and that didn't have to be "adjusted" to be historically correct. Then if a Player wanted to lead the South he would have a better chance to have the real experiance..., and a good means of comparison with other players. Stating you won the "ACW Historical Scenario" would mean something to other players. Or won it with a "+1" or a "+2" to your side. That's what I was suggesting. Not sure why it seems to have hit so many "sore spots".

[captskillet]

Mike I didn't say it was a sore spot and it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other if they make one..........but you keep harping on an Hist accurate sceanario and all I'm saying is that with a comp. Union commander the South SHOULD have ZERO chace to win the war based on said scenario..........only lousy Generalship esp @ Sharpsburg allowed it to go on as long as it did and when Lincoln, etc. wised up and put a commander in charge (Grant) who knew how to use the North's huge material and manpower advantage by latching ahold of the South any and everywhere and not letting up all bets were off!

[Mike Scholl]

Not trying to start a fight, capt. But if it didn't "touch a nerve" of some sort, why are you and sarge "jumping in" to put it down? It was just a suggestion among many others for a possible additional scenario. I don't know if they'll use it or not..., and I'll play the game in either case. I just thought it would provide an interesting challange for the "devoted Rebels" in the playing audiance to "take a shot" at the real challanges that faced Davis and Lee and co.

[captskillet]

Ok Mike have it ur way it struck a nerve............[8|]!

[freeboy]

this is my idea , not that the 62 64 etc ideas are not good too.
I thnk it would be nice to see a delayed hypothetical Southern war, with an improved South that really can put the Union on its heels, and then a more Hystorical Union economy that if they survive the first six months will kick out massive goodies... would be challenging for both sides

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
"bennies" on the Confederate side for "balance". But just for a "cold splash of reality" on the face of players who are feeling "too successful", how about a "totally realistic scenario" like you mentioned when describing the "testors first reactions" to the game as "research" had generated it? The one with the accurate OB and realistic economic assets for

I like this idea quite a bit.

I vote for this too. Not because I think I'd play it a lot but it would be interesting to see. I like balance too so I'm fine with concessions but for a challenge, it would be nice to have a "total realism" opening scenario.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Not trying to start a fight, capt. But if it didn't "touch a nerve" of some sort, why are you and sarge "jumping in" to put it down? It was just a suggestion among many others for a possible additional scenario. I don't know if they'll use it or not..., and I'll play the game in either case. I just thought it would provide an interesting challange for the "devoted Rebels" in the playing audiance to "take a shot" at the real challanges that faced Davis and Lee and co.

because I don't think your ideas on some of this are any good, you want to add a system/campaign to the game, that you do not know what it was or will do, you want to make chanegs to the game, that you can already do with the settings, you want to say the CSA is unbeatable, when I have shown that the CSA falls very easy

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

...how about a "totally realistic scenario" ...? ... one with the accurate OB and realistic economic assets for both sides. ...In other words, the "real" ACW.

(I took the liberty of slicing a few words out of Mike's original post since (as usual [8|] ), he seems to have irritated some. IMHO, this is too good an idea to get lost in emotional wrangling [:-] )

I think this is an excellent idea! There should be two new scenarios that provide this reality feature for the two stock start-points but I would happily settle for either start-point if we can only get one.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

An East scenario and a West scenario come to mind. A split along the lines of Wisconsin - Indiana - Kentucky - Tennessee - Alabama and points west being in the West scenario and the rest in the East. Michigan might go either way depending on the best balance for the economics.

This is a good idea, but not for a scenario patch, since it would require dividing the map, which is MAJOR work. We have been toying with producing one or more expansion packs related to particular theaters, though, and would certainly consider your suggestion then. It really depends on how FOF does in terms of sales -- if it does well, we can expand on it with further releases.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: marecone

Not sure if this should go here or somewhere else but... could you makea scenario with only one tactical battle? Maybe with options whereyou would have some resources and then buy units, attributes and weapons? Or if it is too much then just tactical battle.

Well, if FOF does well enough to warrant expansion packs, we'd like to produce some tactical battle-only games based on historical battles, if that's what you mean. Or would you prefer randomized battlefields?

[Mike Scholl]

How about a "Fascist" scenario where we can take complaining/annoying Governors out and shoot them.   Wouldn't be very realistic..., but it sure would be satisfying! 

[Hard Sarge]

That I could live with

but I do not think either side had the backing or the strength to do so

[marecone]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: marecone

Not sure if this should go here or somewhere else but... could you makea scenario with only one tactical battle? Maybe with options whereyou would have some resources and then buy units, attributes and weapons? Or if it is too much then just tactical battle.

Well, if FOF does well enough to warrant expansion packs, we'd like to produce some tactical battle-only games based on historical battles, if that's what you mean. Or would you prefer randomized battlefields?

Historical battles would be great. I belive that by doing this you could get more customers as not everybody is happy dealing with politics, economy and such. By doing this you could get those other guys.
If that is too much to ask then just make random battlefields.
BTW, great resource for maps is library of congress.

[regularbird]

I love the completly historic scenario idea.

[JaguarUSF]

I would make new scenarios based on major historical battles. You could place the units in the appropriate positions for the battle so that people could reinact them after pressing end turn, or make it right after the battle so people could start playing after the results. Here are the dates I would recommend, as they show a good variety of dates (about every 6 months):

Early April 1862 (Shiloh)
Late August 1862 (2nd Manassas and eventually Antietam in mid September)
Early May 1863 (Chancellorsville)
Early July 1863 (Gettysburg)
Late September 1863 (Chickamauga)
Early May 1864 (Wilderness and Spotsylvania)

[Berkut]

I would definitely go for a more historical scenario, or at least as historical as I can get it.

However, I haven't played this game against the AI, and serisouly doubt I ever will, so I don't really care about what can or cannot be accomplished in that context. I am not sure how one can make a "balance" argument based on success against the AI (or lack of such success). AIs are stupid, and beating them means little.

What I would like tos ee ideally (and frankly was rather surprised wasn't there at the start) is a set of scenarios for each year, and a couple differnt "grand campaign" scnearios with varying levels of "help" for the South, from no help, to some simple fundamental assumptions scetching out "might have been" plausible scenarios for Confederate victory.

I do not like the "standard" scenario simply making up fictional men so that the South can have a chance. The South managed to survive the north for a couple years without those men, and a superior simulation would represent that without the need to resort to wholly fictional force levels.

JM2C of course.