A nice - sortof - surprise from the AI

[gunnergoz]

I'm playing a game at first sargeant level (the normal one) as the North. I've pretty well whipped the South on the ground at every opportunity. But I ignored the naval side and didn't do any upgrades of existing vessels' armaments, nor did I bother with much naval research. The AI must have picked up on my inattentiveness and managed to build itself a nice Southern war fleet and beat the crap out of my Northern navy. To top it off, they then sauntered up to Brooklyn and launched an amphibious assault, putting the Brooklyn base under siege! I had to muster brigades all over NY and NJ (causing their loyalty to drop from 100 to 79 or so) and then had to bring up a reinforced division from AoP to deal with the incursion. The nerve!
I'm really tickled that the AI was clever enough to figure out this opportunity. Now I have to put some emphasis on the navy as well as the North (I didn't which is ahistorical, but I appreciate that the game corrected me on that mistake.)
Good job, Matrix and developers! [&o]

[Conhugeco]

Hi gunnergoz,

Nice to see you here in addition to the Battlefront forums.

Although I agree that the AI was very clever in doing what it did, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that the Confederacy was even able to do it? I admit that I need to spend more time learning the game, but from my limited experience with it, and the posts on this forum, I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling about the game as a game about the ACW.

The rebs who invaded Brooklyn didn't happen to be armed with AK47's did they? [:)]

DickH

[Erik Rutins]

DickH,

The game is fairly open-ended, but if both sides follow the historical strategies, they'll get pretty historical results. With that said, we're already looking at the South's starting navy as a possible tweak area. It's also very easy on a scenario basis to just remove those fleets if you don't want them there. As the North though, you shouldn't completely ignore your navy and expect that the navy you have on the first day of the Civil War will be fine throughout. Historically, that didn't happen either.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mike Scholl]

"The AI must have picked up on my inattentiveness and managed to build itself a nice Southern war fleet and beat the crap out of my Northern navy."

You are giving the AI a bit too much credit. In the current scenario OB's the South gets 2 Fleets and 5 Ships free to start the game. You only get 2 Fleets and 9 ships yourself. In reality, you ignoring your navy as the Union should have meant the South getting free access to lots of "goodies" from their "blockade runners"---not the invasion of Brooklyn.

[Conhugeco]

Erik,

Thanks for the reply. Like I said, I haven't yet played the game extensively, nor have I given up on it - that's why I used the term uneasy, and not something more harsh. The AK47 comment was strictly tongue-in-cheek.

I very much appreciate the fact that the designers/developers are listening to the customers, and appear willing to consider patches/options to address the concerns.

Regards,
DickH

[ericbabe]

AI CSA naval invasions are a bit of a controversy among the testers -- some like the possibility and (also) were happily surprised when it happened, others have recommended disallowing the AI from doing it on the basis of its being ahistorical.  I've decided to see if there's a general consensus among players before changing anything.

[Mike Scholl]

Eric. I think the general consensus at the end of the "Naval Question" thread was that the South shouldn't even have a Navy. That a collection of "gunboats" with something like 20 "guns" total (in the whole Navy) didn't even qualify for inclusion as such.

[ericbabe]

No option to build a navy either?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

No option to build a navy either?

No objection to them "building" a navy..., that's a resource allocation question. Only object to them getting "for free" what they never had "for real".

[LitFuel]

Eric,
 
Don't tweak this thing into a history book. The ranting get's very old after a while from a few people. There are going to be Civil War fanatics who are going to harp on everything they can, and won't be happy until everything is exactly how it happend no matter how you play it. To me that isn't a "game" it's a history lesson. I want to be surprised, I want to have to make choices. I already know how the real thing turned out.  Books are great for replaying history, games are not...don't forget the fun!
 
 
 
 

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

Eric,

Don't tweak this thing into a history book. The ranting get's very old after a while from a few people. There are going to be Civil War fanatics who are going to harp on everything they can, and won't be happy until everything is exactly how it happend no matter how you play it. To me that isn't a "game" it's a history lesson. I want to be surprised, I want to have to make choices. I already know how the real thing turned out.  Books are great for replaying history, games are not...don't forget the fun!

So you're a fanatic if you want a game about the civil war to be like the civil war? Would I be a fanatic if I complained that a baseball game had Babe Ruth hitting 10 home runs a year and playing shortstop? How about a World War II game that gives Germany 10 aircraft carriers in 1939? The fun of a historical game is taking what one side had in a conflict and trying to do better. If you want a game where both sides are evenly matched why did you pick a Civil War game?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

Eric,

Don't tweak this thing into a history book. The ranting get's very old after a while from a few people. There are going to be Civil War fanatics who are going to harp on everything they can, and won't be happy until everything is exactly how it happend no matter how you play it. To me that isn't a "game" it's a history lesson. I want to be surprised, I want to have to make choices. I already know how the real thing turned out.  Books are great for replaying history, games are not...don't forget the fun!

WHY NOT BOTH? Why must it be "one or the other"? No one on the history side would object to there being a "fantasy" scenario in the game..., why can't you "fantasy fans" say yes to a "historical" one as well? I am completely baffled by this attitude.

[LMUBill]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

Eric,

Don't tweak this thing into a history book. The ranting get's very old after a while from a few people. There are going to be Civil War fanatics who are going to harp on everything they can, and won't be happy until everything is exactly how it happend no matter how you play it. To me that isn't a "game" it's a history lesson. I want to be surprised, I want to have to make choices. I already know how the real thing turned out.  Books are great for replaying history, games are not...don't forget the fun!

WHY NOT BOTH? Why must it be "one or the other"? No one on the history side would object to there being a "fantasy" scenario in the game..., why can't you "fantasy fans" say yes to a "historical" one as well? I am completely baffled by this attitude.

I'm still waiting for the "Guns of the South" scenario myself....

[Malagant]

I think you should ask that question to Sid Meier.

Paraphrasing a quote of his, "When reality and fun clash, fun must win."

It would not make for a very fun game if it were such a 'historically accurate' model of 'real life' events that there was no opportunity for the player to affect the outcome.

I don't disagree that the CSA starting navy gives them unreasonable capabilities, but otherwise this game is (at least in my opinion) successful at being a fun simulation without any pretense (or need) of being a hyper-accurate one.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

WHY NOT BOTH? Why must it be "one or the other"? No one on the history side would object to there being a "fantasy" scenario in the game..., why can't you "fantasy fans" say yes to a "historical" one as well? I am completely baffled by this attitude.

[Mike Scholl]

It would not make for a very fun game if it were such a 'historically accurate' model of 'real life' events that there was no opportunity for the player to affect the outcome. Maybe not for you..., but why do you insist that everyone be you? Why only your way? You haven't answered the question..., "Why not BOTH?"

I don't disagree that the CSA starting navy gives them unreasonable capabilities, but otherwise this game is (at least in my opinion) successful at being a fun simulation without any pretense (or need) of being a hyper-accurate one. Again, why can't we have both? The "engine" seemingly will support it, and a Designer suggested it. Why is it so important to you to have ONLY "fantasy"? Why can't everyone "get their way."?

[LitFuel]

I hate to burst a few peoples bubble here but most history books arn't exactly 100% accurate either...I think they did a good job and packed in many features no other Civil War game has. I also found some of the posts to the developers to be rather rude and condescending. There is no need for that at all as it's not like this game is a piece of crap, and I think it's nice of them to still listen when they get those posts. I can see changing some obvious glaring things but some want to make it play out so close to history I can't imagine why you would want to play it...that's not fun to replay the same thing over and over.

It's a game, have fun with it or go read a book(not that they are always right either..lol)

Mike ,

Read your earlier post..you don't want both, as you were so gracious to offer one fantasy scenerio...gosh thanks for that [8|]. I'm not talking about Fantasies I'm talking about not getting carried away molding it into a Civil War replay for you to gaze at.

[Javakamp]

ORIGINAL: Malagant

I think you should ask that question to Sid Meier.

Paraphrasing a quote of his, "When reality and fun clash, fun must win."

It would not make for a very fun game if it were such a 'historically accurate' model of 'real life' events that there was no opportunity for the player to affect the outcome.

I don't disagree that the CSA starting navy gives them unreasonable capabilities, but otherwise this game is (at least in my opinion) successful at being a fun simulation without any pretense (or need) of being a hyper-accurate one.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

WHY NOT BOTH? Why must it be "one or the other"? No one on the history side would object to there being a "fantasy" scenario in the game..., why can't you "fantasy fans" say yes to a "historical" one as well? I am completely baffled by this attitude.

The old "Realisim" vs "Playability" argumnent has been around as long as wargames, and always will.

[gunnergoz]

My vote is to give us lots of options in the game set-up screen, to include ahistorical CSA fleets, etc.  The game seems to accomodate all sorts of types of players, so why not?  Build your own game, then play it.  Everyone wins.  [8D]

[Mike Scholl]

Mike ,

Read your earlier post..you don't want both, as you were so gracious to offer one fantasy scenerio...gosh thanks for that . I'm not talking about Fantasies I'm talking about not getting carried away molding it into a Civil War replay for you to gaze at.


What? The only two scenarios in the game (not counting shorty) are both "fantasies". Eric has offered to add an "historical one" and folks are objecting. Hense my statement "Why not both?" Now you are right in one regard.., I don't want "both". I want the "historic" one. But I'm not so selfish as to want to deny other choices to other people, so I think "both" would be a great step for everyone.

[spruce]

In my CSA game I got Ironclad development and builded some ironclad units and was blockading Washington ... what's wrong with that ?
 
btw = I lost the battle and my navy had to retreat with the tail between the legs [:D]