New Civil War Scenarios for Future Patches

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Certainly agree. I am playing the AI exclusively right now in order to learn the game mechanics. Beating the AI to be expected; I am sure a "balanced" AI game is possible with the range of options, but what is the point? Setting the options to the extremes may provide the balance but it would be relatively useless as a training tool preparing to face (virtually anyway) a live opponent.

I would also like to see a number of different start points, but I would settle for a single, historical start point with historical modeling parameters.

[jsaurman]

Would it be possible to have a strictly naval scenerio?   I know there wasn't much of a southern navy, but it would be cool to have to pick the appropriate admiral (could we just add in another general, who is an admiral, and assign him to a ship?) and then do some sort of detailed battle with ships?  Maybe I'm overthinking this, and maybe there isn't much noteworthy on the naval side besides "Monitor/Virginia" but I'm just throwing out ideas.

[elbkhan]

Agree completely with the 'total realism' scenario - which'll be hard since we all knows its a game and no human player should believe Pinkerton's estimates regarding how many southern troops there are.

[christof139]

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.

 
Hello, I am not a programmer but have modded a few things with a text editor only, but could you just blank-out either the western or eastern half of the map depending on what theater one chooses, and just use the same map with one part 'simply' blanked-out and inaccessible?? You probably have thought of this already anyway, but just an idea.
 
I am going to buy FoF very soon, and have to say from reading all th eposts that it seems good, and your support is great. Also, Hard Sarge explains much of the workings of the game, especially how to use the settings to get a near historical economic setup.
 
If Hard Sarge could post the setting he uses for his near historical settings, that would be great for us historo-nerds and flagellationists. [&o] [;)]
 
I like the idea of 1) East and West campaigns; 2) the different time period starting scenarios so you don't have to play a very long campaign game; 3) a Total Victory scenario without a time limit; 4) maybe some tactical historical battles, but for me i have the old and great and easily moddable TalonSoft games; 4) an option to publicly HANG rather than shoot the pestiferous politicians just for GP [8|].
 
Thank you for your time and effort, unless you're a Politician. And have a great Holiday Season with some good Bar-B-Q'd Southern cooking with brown sugar and molasses in the sauce.
 
Chris
 

[Gil R.]

christof139,
Blanking out part of the map is a very large undertaking. However, if FOF does well, we would hope to have expansion packs, and some of these would definitely be devoted to particular theaters. (We'd also like to do historical battles -- it's unclear which we'd do first.)

[Jaypea]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: slybelle

I would vote for one that depicts when Sumter happened or even before it.

This one would involve a lot of programming -- it's not simply a matter of creating new OOB data files, since there would have to be mechanisms for secession, war breaking out, etc. Perhaps down the road in an expansion pack, but not for a patch in the next month or two.

I would buy this expansion pack!

As for you question, I don't need any scenarios as I only like to play full campaigns (entire war). This games seems to be short in some regard as it does not include the secession of states (jan 1861 onward).

Jaypea

[Viking67]

A "Day After" Fort Sumter scenario.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I naturally vote for this too. I also think scenarios starting at different points in 1861 (such as we have already) are of some interest. Frankly, I'm unlikely to try scenarios starting in later years or covering only one theatre of war.

[Gil R.]

Just to update everyone...

The upcoming patch will contain an updated version of the July scenario that jimwinsor put together. After that, we plan to come out with at least a few more scenarios, which will be issued regularly through patches (and which, I hope, we'll be able to release unofficially for you guys to test before we incorporate them into the game). So, for now it's still just the July and November scenarios, but soon thereafter we'll be able to get out more scenarios. Please continue to make suggestions on what would be most desirable.

[Mike Scholl]

For a "starting point" in the Histiorical Scenario, I'd like to suggest the Day after Bull Run.  If the South lost that fight, the "War" might have ended quite quickly (which though accurate would be a dissapointing game.)   After Bull Run came the real mobilization for the North, plus the confidence that gave the South an early "edge" in morale.  It also led to the Europeans thinking that the Confederate Cause might be viable.  Bull Run more or less "set the stage" for the real ACW.

[Gil R.]

That's a good idea, especially since so many people appear to prefer starting in July to November, but I don't think there's time to include a post-Manassas July scenario in this upcoming patch, since that would require new research on where all of both sides' forces and commanders were located. Creating a historically imbalanced November scenario is easier, since we mainly need to mess with buildings and production levels.

[chris0827]

February 1862 would be a better starting point than nov 1861. There was little activity during nov - jan. Grant started his campaign in Feb 1862 and McClellan got moving in march 1862. Of course this would be in addition to an earlier 1861 scenario.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

February 1862 would be a better starting point than nov 1861. There was little activity during nov - jan. Grant started his campaign in Feb 1862 and McClellan got moving in march 1862. Of course this would be in addition to an earlier 1861 scenario.

I see your point, but can say that would be a lower priority, since the Nov. start-date makes a lot of sense in terms of giving the player more time to shape his forces, economy, research, etc. I guess that Feb. 1862 makes sense for people who toggle off a lot of those options, but our first priority after this patch will be to create scenarios from deeper into the war.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

February 1862 would be a better starting point than nov 1861. There was little activity during nov - jan. Grant started his campaign in Feb 1862 and McClellan got moving in march 1862. Of course this would be in addition to an earlier 1861 scenario.

Problem with this is it takes too many "choices" out of the players hands. What to build, where to build it, when to build it? I think it's the reason so many players immediately chose the July scenario over the November one---even though the November one was the "Official Start". You can't ask players "not to play"..., it just doesn't work when you toss people into the mix.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: chris0827

February 1862 would be a better starting point than nov 1861. There was little activity during nov - jan. Grant started his campaign in Feb 1862 and McClellan got moving in march 1862. Of course this would be in addition to an earlier 1861 scenario.

Problem with this is it takes too many "choices" out of the players hands. What to build, where to build it, when to build it? I think it's the reason so many players immediately chose the July scenario over the November one---even though the November one was the "Official Start". You can't ask players "not to play"..., it just doesn't work when you toss people into the mix.

I didn't mean to suggest that feb 1862 be the earliest scenario just that I thought it was a better point to start one than nov 1861. I still would prefer to play a july 1861 or earlier scenario.

[wzh55]

I would just like to see a game with the option to continue after being told that the winner was..... So far I can finish a solo game in one night and have not lost one yet with difficulty up to 1st Lt. Keep after it. Thanks.

[jonreb31]

I really like the Historical Scenario idea. The South seems too equal to the North in the cases of economy, manpower and technology. It would be a lot of fun if it was as close to history as possible so you could make the delicate decisions the South had to make.

[Marc gto]

im with mike on this one

[Bombsight]

Hey Gil,
With the present power selections available in set up, you can't acheive the historical production that the North actually accomplished. How about considering in some patch a modification to allow the north to use a power rating higher than +3 to come closer to the actual Northern production?

[ptan54]

1 - TOTAL VICTORY option.
2 - Just before Antietam (summer 1862).
3 - Just before Chancellorsville (spring 1863).
4 - Just before Gettysburg (summer 1863).
5 - Post Gettysburg, before Petersburg (winter 1863/spring 1864). Very challenging for the CSA, only hope is to inflict crushing defeats on USA near Nov. 1864 and win British and French recognition.