The historical test

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The system needs to guarantee the "possibility" of a Chancellorsville..., but not it's certainty.

Agreed. But I don't think the game is THAT unbalanced at present.

[Mike Scholl]

I would say that it is in the sense that it's almost impossible for the Union to field the massive force Hooker did opposed to Lee (and still have the rest of the Armies in action that they did at the time.)

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I would say that it is in the sense that it's almost impossible for the Union to field the massive force Hooker did opposed to Lee (and still have the rest of the Armies in action that they did at the time.)

Really? I've seen the Union AI throw some whopping big armies at me in the base game. I've been pressed both East and West by armies that outnumber me. If the AI were to do a better job of consolidating its Eastern armies, I bet they would, at times, outnumber me by close to 2 to 1.

[kfmiller41]

my biggest single problem with the game as it is now is (IMHO) the massive southern advantage the game seems to have. The union has only a minimal economic advantage and it seems way to easy for Europe to give the south alot of help. Using history as a guide, the south should be outnumbered on the ground and at sea from the outset, they should have better quality and better leadership. The Union used its superior numbers and economy to beat down the south over time. The best chance the south had for victory was the first 3 years and it got harder every year. I just don't think the game reflects that. Another game comes to mind with this situation, War in the Pacific. Japan starts out as strong as she ever gets and it goes downhill from there. They can win if played well (although in the end its just a moral victory). The same situation should be happening here. The south starts out as strong as she will ever be and a good southern player will find a way to keep the north at bay until they give up and Lincoln loses the election. Just my 2 cents.

[Roger Neilson II]

Very reminiscent of comments i have also made re WITP and the similarities of the problem for the underdog.

Roger

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Does this include cutting the Mississippi? I see a LOT of RED on that map.

sorry, I do not follow this question, the question asked was could the player (Union) or I, do 3 things that the Union had done in real life, I said that the one game I played as the Union during testings I had done 2 of the 3, and never went for the 3rd one, as my goal then was to take out the ANV

then it was brought up that since I didn't take NO, it was not doable, I just showing that it is doable in the right timeline

I do not know if I would want to do it, in a "real" game but it is a heck of a target if it works

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us.

Mike

that was normal seige combat

I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's

to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game

I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected

I understood that New Orleans was taken with normal siege combat...., what I meant was were you using the "Detailed Combat System" in that GAME? Your "expertise" with "detailed combat" means you can confidently expect to pull out victories that a player using "quick combat" (practicing for PBEM) can't hope to win normally. It gives you a "freedom of action" that those less skilled or not using Detailed Combat can't emulate. That was what I was asking.

well, as it was a test game, and not a game game, I didn't care what happened in any other area, so any battle fought was QC

which remember, at times, I set up games to just see what I can test, if something is said or what not, I will see if I can that up to see what is being talked about, not every game or test I do, is a pureblown HW combat fest (when I play for fun, it is)

so, that was a test game to see if I could do it, but if I could do it there, I could do it in one of my real games

that make sense ?

[Hard Sarge]

[/quote]

I agree that the current set up probably favors the South too heavily and probably would endorse most of the points spruce made. But I do resist the notion that the answer lies wholly, or even mostly, in the numbers. Indeed, simply modeling the ledgers is the easy way out. Far better, I think, to build a game that captures the fog of uncertainty that bedeviled our ancestors, within the bounds of historical plausibility.

I am not so sure if the Bais that is being complained about is really "there" to the extent that most people think it is, I think most people are reading what can be done, and reading what is here and there and so "think" it is bais

during the middle of testing, I ran a game from the Union for the first time, and crushed the south and won the game in 62, most of my statments and wishes were for things to make the Union stronger, now there was concern that if I could crush the CSA that easily, the south needed more help then the Union did, then it was decided that maybe it was just me, so the south was left alone

I still got to say, during Alpha and Beta, there was no Fanboyism from the designers or from the testers

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I would say that it is in the sense that it's almost impossible for the Union to field the massive force Hooker did opposed to Lee (and still have the rest of the Armies in action that they did at the time.)

I must of worked too HARD last night, I am not following most of these lines of thought at all this morning

Why ? you may not be able to build a lot of Cav early in the game, but you can build a lot of Inf and Arty (and seige and gunboats, which are more importent)

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge



Mike

that was normal seige combat

I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's

to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game

I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected

I understood that New Orleans was taken with normal siege combat...., what I meant was were you using the "Detailed Combat System" in that GAME? Your "expertise" with "detailed combat" means you can confidently expect to pull out victories that a player using "quick combat" (practicing for PBEM) can't hope to win normally. It gives you a "freedom of action" that those less skilled or not using Detailed Combat can't emulate. That was what I was asking.

well, as it was a test game, and not a game game, I didn't care what happened in any other area, so any battle fought was QC. OK..., that tells me something. You were just playing this scenario to see if N.O. could be captured---and not worrying about what was happening elsewhere.

And remember, at times, I set up games to just see what I can test, if something is said or what not, I will see if I can that up to see what is being talked about, not every game or test I do, is a pureblown HW combat fest (when I play for fun, it is). Certainly understandable considering the number of questions on which your opinion is solicited

So this was a test game to see if I could do it, but if I could do it there, I could do it in one of my real games. This was where my question began. You took N.O....., but what did the rest of your situation look like? Spring of 1862 was a really busy time for the Union IRL. Farragut taking New Orleans (with Butler's occupation force following), Pope siezing the Mississippi Forts and Memphis, Grant and Foote opening up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers at Henry and Donaldson while Buell marched his army on Nashville through Kentucky. That's over 150,000 men involved in some active operation in the West. And in the East between Burnside on the Carolina Coast and Fremont in the Allegheny's, you also have Banks in the Valley, Wool at Fortress Monroe, and "Little Mac's" massive Army of the Potomac around Washington----over 200,000 men ready to go into "action". My question is "Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?
that make sense ?

[Hard Sarge]

to be honest no

one thing I didn't want to do, was to do something that would be seen as drawing off troops that could of helped/countered the landing at NO

the goal of the test was to see if I could make a landing and if I could take out the fort and city with in the time line requested

I would also say, that the AoP was stronger then I normally leave it, I tend to shift troops out of the area in normal games

(one bad part about posting that test, now in any PBEM game, I do not think the Union is ever going to get away with it, as the CSA player will now make sure if nothing else, that fort is upgraded a little bit)

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest no

Fair enough. It seems with luck and planning New Orleans CAN fall at approximately the right time. That's good. It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time. Not so good. But it helps to define the problem, and what might be needed to correct it overall..., which is progress.

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

Agreed. But I don't think the game is THAT unbalanced at present.

For the most part I agree with you but there are some areas that are very unbalanced. My top three would be the:

1) Navy/Blockade. The North simply can't afford to field the size of the navy needed to blockade the South. Also the starting size of CSA Navy in the July setup should be 0 Fleets and ships. The Union should also start with at least some of its ships armed in the July Setup (the Union fleet size near as I can tell is correct)

2) The ability to field the correct army sizes with Divisions commanders. Also as the size of armies goes up I have some concerns that the only weapon either side will be able to use will be the Mini Riffle but to limits on the number of Springfield’s and improved Springfield’s.

3) Generals needs some work. The arrival dates are way off on some of the generals, this tends to hurt the Union more than the CSA as the CSA has great generals at start. Also Generals never seem to die in QB which is what people who use PBEM use, I’ve lost two generals in nine games so far in QB).

Overall, I think the game I great.

Rook

[Thresh]

And, in somewhat of an "injury to Insult" situation, if you take New Orleans early , you can't really hold onto it that long, as it doesn't border another province the Union owns, it's out of supply, and will wither away and die.

Unless of course I missed something somewheres, which is entirel possible.

Thresh

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

And, in somewhat of an "injury to Insult" situation, if you take New Orleans early , you can't really hold onto it that long, as it doesn't border another province the Union owns, it's out of supply, and will wither away and die.

Unless of course I missed something somewheres, which is entirel possible.

Thresh

I *think* these units in a fort can trace supply to sea and then be in supply. There is a starting fort for the Union in FL where their is a similar situation at the start of the July Setup.

This still doesn’t solve the problem that you can't take control of the province.

Rook

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: rook749

For the most part I agree with you but there are some areas that are very unbalanced. My top three would be the:

1) Navy/Blockade. The North simply can't afford to field the size of the navy needed to blockade the South. Also the starting size of CSA Navy in the July setup should be 0 Fleets and ships. The Union should also start with at least some of its ships armed in the July Setup (the Union fleet size near as I can tell is correct)

2) The ability to field the correct army sizes with Divisions commanders. Also as the size of armies goes up I have some concerns that the only weapon either side will be able to use will be the Mini Riffle but to limits on the number of Springfield’s and improved Springfield’s.

3) Generals needs some work. The arrival dates are way off on some of the generals, this tends to hurt the Union more than the CSA as the CSA has great generals at start. Also Generals never seem to die in QB which is what people who use PBEM use, I’ve lost two generals in nine games so far in QB).

Overall, I think the game I great.

Rook

I'd add a number 4 here. The inability to build the historical armies both sides used. By Antietam both armies should have at least 1 artillery unit attached to each division and large artillery reserves attached to their corps and armies. The Union should have mostly the better pieces the south a more mixed bag of pieces. But both sides fielded large numbers of artillery units, something which is impossible to do given how the economy works now.

Sure you can dedicate 100% of your production to building artillery and get a few dozen units (far fewer than historical), but then you’ll be critically short in other areas.

The game just can’t be called an historical recreation of the civil war. Too many things in it have nothing to do with history and everything to do with balancing a strategy title. I think of it more as a strategy game using a civil war theme. Fun to play, but not even close to an historical recreation of the actual war.

Jim

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest no

Fair enough. It seems with luck and planning New Orleans CAN fall at approximately the right time. That's good. It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time. Not so good. But it helps to define the problem, and what might be needed to correct it overall..., which is progress.

and again, Why ? I have done all 3 of the things asked, and none of them used the same troops, it is not like the troops used to take NO would of been the troops used to take Nashville ?

(I am glad no one is asking when I took out the ANV)

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

And, in somewhat of an "injury to Insult" situation, if you take New Orleans early , you can't really hold onto it that long, as it doesn't border another province the Union owns, it's out of supply, and will wither away and die.

Unless of course I missed something somewheres, which is entirel possible.

Thresh

the city will provide the supply needed for the troops with in the city, you will still own the City, what it makes and what not (not troops) will be yours, you not be able to use that city as a spring board into the underbelly of the south, the loss of NO will be a major blow to the south, just in itself

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest no

Fair enough. It seems with luck and planning New Orleans CAN fall at approximately the right time. That's good. It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time. Not so good. But it helps to define the problem, and what might be needed to correct it overall..., which is progress.
[/quote]


and again, Why ? I have done all 3 of the things asked, and none of them used the same troops, it is not like the troops used to take NO would of been the troops used to take Nashville ?
(I am glad no one is asking when I took out the ANV)
[/quote]



WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."

[Erik Rutins]

Jim,

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The game just can’t be called an historical recreation of the civil war. Too many things in it have nothing to do with history and everything to do with balancing a strategy title. I think of it more as a strategy game using a civil war theme. Fun to play, but not even close to an historical recreation of the actual war.

Have you tried the various options provided to tailor the game to your liking? +3 Union Power, -3 Confederate Power and Richer Economies can allow the Union a lot more leeway as far as multiple parallel production and research paths.

Regards,

- Erik