The historical test

[regularbird]

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.
 
I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

...

Yeah, but this question is moving the goal posts. The original question lacked the "...against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish" clause.

Hard Sarge quite convincingly answered the original question "yes."

And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.

Artillery batteries were 6 guns and 155 men therefore a 3000 man brigade would average out to 116 guns. A few less once you factor in command staff at the battatlion and brigade level.

Actually I would half that number of guns to about 50 or so. Why? Because an Arty Bde in this game costs 1 manpower to build, as opposed to 2 for Inf and Cav Bdes. Hence I think it's fair to say there is only 1500 men in this unit, hence about 50 guns. FWIW.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

...

Yeah, but this question is moving the goal posts. The original question lacked the "...against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish" clause.

Hard Sarge quite convincingly answered the original question "yes."

That isn't moving the goal posts, it is establishing them where they belong to begin with. Sarge proving that he could accomplish something against the AI doesn't prove that the game makes it possible against a human player. The inability to supply via sea is a pretty major oversight, for example.

And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.

Well, lets be fair here. There were quite a lot of shots fired at Forts Jackson and...I forget the name of the other one.

The assumption was that they would protect the city. It wasn't taken without a fight, the fight just happened down the river a bit. To achieve true "historical indecision" the game should make it provisionally possible to actually protect a river with forts - something that most considered accurate in the early days of the war.

Which I have always thought would be interesting. Farragut proved that forts, by and large, could not deny a fleet passage. But before he proved it, the assupmption was that they could. Wouldn't it be interesting to play a game where the basic physical realities of what works is unknown at the start? Kind of like hidden generals ratings, but instead hidden combat engine settings...

Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...

[Twotribes]

I will grant the artillery Brigade, BUT try and build up your Infantry, Cavalry and navy all at the same time AND provide an approximate mix of Artillery attributed Brigades to represent the Actually Union forces. Ohh and try to arm them with anything other than blunderbusses.

Dont forget while doing this you need to find the money to build about 20 Acadamies, research facilities, armories just to arm, train and have the ranked generals you should have.

While doing all that see whats left to bribe the Europeans not to join the Confederacy and to manage ANY upgrade to your other economies.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: kafka
hmm... I thought I've purchased a game (which btw I enjoy as it is) and not just a tool to feed the illusion of a perpetual history recreation

The issue is that it's supposed to be a game of the American Civil War. The fact that you enjoy it is of some interest, but it's irrelevant to this particular issue. Maybe you enjoy Tetris too, but Tetris isn't marketed as a game of the American Civil War and so it doesn't attract this kind of historical criticism.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.

As I understand it, the Confederacy believed that its forts and 'torpedoes' would protect New Orleans from attack from the sea. That was wrong, but not necessarily stupid. Farragut tested the belief and found it wrong, good for him. If he'd been wrong, he might have gone down with his ships.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?

The artillery in the civil war was grouped into battalions not brigades.

[regularbird]

I am certain that you can MOD the cost if infantry, calvary and artillery.  I myself am not in love with the economic system, it definatley needs some tweaking. 

[Twotribes]

The problem with moding the costs is then you have to go mod the research upgrades as well, and then you have to ADD population, you have to add economy, add more and more, all basic guess work for those of us that didnt do "exhaustive" research on the period in question based on the game engine capabilities.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.

As I understand it, the Confederacy believed that its forts and 'torpedoes' would protect New Orleans from attack from the sea. That was wrong, but not necessarily stupid. Farragut tested the belief and found it wrong, good for him. If he'd been wrong, he might have gone down with his ships.

Didnt Farragut have his Flagship sunk under him? I know at least one main naval Combatent ( as I recall) went down due to "Torpedoes".

[regularbird]

OK, where there 1 Batt per division or one Battalion per corp, or 1 Battalion per brigade? I am just trying to see if the number of pieces will break down with some historical accuracy. I am guessing that a Corp would have a brigade worth of Arty. Which I guess now would be around 80 pieces, right?

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Well, lets be fair here. There were quite a lot of shots fired at Forts Jackson and...I forget the name of the other one.

The assumption was that they would protect the city. It wasn't taken without a fight, the fight just happened down the river a bit. To achieve true "historical indecision" the game should make it provisionally possible to actually protect a river with forts - something that most considered accurate in the early days of the war.

Which I have always thought would be interesting. Farragut proved that forts, by and large, could not deny a fleet passage. But before he proved it, the assupmption was that they could. Wouldn't it be interesting to play a game where the basic physical realities of what works is unknown at the start? Kind of like hidden generals ratings, but instead hidden combat engine settings...

Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...

You could always simulate this by playing the game w/o reading the rulebook first... [:D]

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?

The artillery in the civil war was grouped into battalions not brigades.

I seem to be partly wrong. The confederates called them battalions and the Union seemed to call them brigades but they were much smaller than the artillery units in FoF.

[Erik Rutins]

The fact is, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that while the designers chose a default balance for game purposes, they included a ton of options to make it possible to tailor your own game _without_ modding. In addition to that, the first update and the next one will help with player requests in the area of fleets and generals, among other things.

What's preventing people who want a more realistic imbalance from setting the following provided in-game settings? No modding required, these are official game options:

Note that this is how I would set them if trying to set the balance to "painfully realistic" for the South, this is not an official endorsement for these as being the perfect combination for those who want the best historical results, but I know the designers included these options so that you could use them.

Start with Advanced Game Settings
Union +3 Power
Confederate -3 Power
Richer Economy ON
Population Modifiers OFF
European Diplomacy OFF
CSA Emancipation OFF
Randomized Stats OFF
Hidden Stats OFF (these last two are OFF only so that the generalship each side starts with is largely historical)
More Generals ON

Give that a try and let me know how it works for you. I think the next update will also add some nice changes for those who are looking for maximum historicity and with the above settings, I'd be very surprised if a historical outcome was not achievable in terms of Union military progress.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...

I can only begin to imagine the feedback such a game design would create...

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Berkut
Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...

I can only begin to imagine the feedback such a game design would create...

LOL, no kidding!

[regularbird]

Eric I have used the power setting quite frequently and the problem is that it effects any new buildings as well. For example If I build a new RR station I only get 3RR pts, or 2 research pts out of a research facility. I am currently trying to mod a scenario that starts the south out with very little but lets me build to a known quantity. But I agree with mike why not make the start point historically and let the power settings be for players who dont care for the historical scenarios.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

OK, where there 1 Batt per division or one Battalion per corp, or 1 Battalion per brigade? I am just trying to see if the number of pieces will break down with some historical accuracy. I am guessing that a Corp would have a brigade worth of Arty. Which I guess now would be around 80 pieces, right?

At Gettysburg the confederates had an artillery battalion for each division plus one for each corps. The union had a brigade per corps and a large 5 brigade artillery reserve. I don't have the number of cannon but the union brigades on average were probably stronger than the confederate battalions since the union usually had 6 gun batteries and the confederates 4 gun batteries.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

...

one thing that is interesting to note is that the blockade was effective even without full coverage by the US Navy. Simply the threat of having your ship and goods siezed killed most international trade with the South, since most shippers were unwilling to risk their fortunes on such an endeavor...especially when there was plenty of money to be amde shipping goods to and from the North anyway!

You are either forgetting or ignoring blockade runners. From Battle Cry of Freedom on blockade runners:

"They shipped out half a million bales of cotton and brought in a million pairs of shoes, half a million rifles, a thousand tons of gunpowder, several hundred cannon, and so on."

That sounds like quite a bit of trade to me.