The historical test

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
If it were entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War Readjusted To Give The South More Clout", then purchasers would have different expectations.

I see no deception in the title as you do. It's a game about the Civil War. Guess we'll see if the next patch brings what people are clamoring for. Be careful what you wish for though. If they truly provide an accuarate simulation then it should be unwinnable for the South. They had no chance really.

I think you are overly pessimistic. True, they had virtually no chance of "winning" militarily..., but they did have some chance of simply outlasting Northern "Will". If Sherman had still been stuck outside Atlanta the way Grant was at Richmond. then the election of 1864 could have lead to a compromise peace. It was the South's best "real hope" historically...., and would be a real "challange" for a Confederate player.

Otherwise I'm with Jonathan..., if it's called "The American Civil War" then at least ONE basic scenario of the game ought to be totally historically accurate. You still have the "+" and "-" buttons to adjust it with---it would just be easier to "adjust" moving away from "reality" than it would be "trying to find reality". If the designers then added in their version of a "fair and balanced scenario" as well, good for them. Two for the price of one, and something for all tastes (or most of them---I'm sure the "modders" would come up with several more for their own favorites)

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

People expect that because it's a reasonable thing to expect. The game is entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865".

If it were entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War Readjusted To Give The South More Clout", then purchasers would have different expectations.

If the game could be made historically accurate just by changing a setting, this would be only a minor quibble (though still a valid complaint in principle). In fact it's rather more complicated than that. But Western Civ seems to be taking the problem seriously and I hope that future patches will bring improvements. The game seems good enough to be worth improving.

I see no deception in the title as you do. It's a game about the Civil War. Guess we'll see if the next patch brings what people are clamoring ofr. Be careful what you wish for though. If they truly provide an accuarate simulation then it should be unwinnable for the South. They had no chance really.

I keep hearing this, but I think that is simply not true.

The problem is that people seem ot have this ahistorical idea of what "winning" means. The South and the North ahd very asymmetric victory conditions. Granted, the North had a hugely greater economic/power base, but also much greater goals.

To win, the South simply has to survive. Much like Washington and the Continental Army, as long as the South had an army in being, they were per force winning. The North had to invade and conquer, the South simply to survive.

I don't think that was a foregone conclusion, becasue I don't think Northern will to fight at any cost was a foregone conclusion. More improtantly, from a game perspective, it doesn't NEED to be a foregone conclusion.

So, you can represent the victory conditions in three different ways, that give the South a chance to win without the need to mess with actual history:

1. Instant win for massive Confederate early success. The conflict in the first year or two is so much in the Southern favor, that Lincoln is compelled to seak a peace leaving much of the South (if not all of it) intact.

2. Instant win as a result of the 1864 elections. Inadequate succcess by the North has resulted in the defeat of Lincoln at the polls, and a pro-peace Democrat is elected. The South in some state will survive, at least for a while, after negotiations to end hostilities.

3. The South loses, but the Southern player wins - if the South can hold out until some end date (end of 1865 would be good) then the Southern player wins the "moral victory".

You could even throw something in there that would relate to foreign recognition.

It is NOT necessary to artifically empower the South in order to make the game balanced.

[Erik Rutins]

Berkut,

ORIGINAL: Berkut
1. Instant win for massive Confederate early success. The conflict in the first year or two is so much in the Southern favor, that Lincoln is compelled to seak a peace leaving much of the South (if not all of it) intact.

This is certainly possible, however, it seems that what makes this possible is also what makes the South too strong in the default scenario from some reports I've seen.

2. Instant win as a result of the 1864 elections. Inadequate succcess by the North has resulted in the defeat of Lincoln at the polls, and a pro-peace Democrat is elected. The South in some state will survive, at least for a while, after negotiations to end hostilities.

This is already in the game, the South gets a 15VP bonus for the turn of November, 1864. If this pushes it over the amount required to win, or the difference required to win, that's that. So the Union has to make sure it's within 9 points of the South before this happens.

3. The South loses, but the Southern player wins - if the South can hold out until some end date (end of 1865 would be good) then the Southern player wins the "moral victory".

Also already in, the South starts getting "time" victory points in the late game.

You could even throw something in there that would relate to foreign recognition.

Already in - the South can gain VPs and the North can lose them based on how Europe is going. Moreover, if the North should be lax enough to allow the possibility, there can even be intervention, though I don't see this happening in any game where the Union player is paying attention. Nevertheless, there's the chance that the Trent Affair spirals out of control, or something similar.

It is NOT necessary to artifically empower the South in order to make the game balanced.

Sure and that's why all those others were also included, along with options to let you choose how strong or weak the South and North are. I understand some folks wish the defaults were more historical, but good grief people, all it takes is changing a few options on the in-game screen to find the balance you like.

With that said, our emphasis in post-release development based on feedback has been to make things more historical where possible, so we are hearing you.

Regards,

- Erik

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

With that said, our emphasis in post-release development based on feedback has been to make things more historical where possible, so we are hearing you.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

Thanks for the feed back and the attention from the developers. I’ll chirp in here in your defense. If you do use the Union +3 Power setting I have seen a far more historical feel and to me fun game – playing as either side). Granted, I would have preferred a starting default scenario to be more historically balanced as opposed to balanced with the +3 Power but over all I think they did a great capturing the Civil War era and feel.

Any way Erik you can list the bug fixes and feature enhancements for the next patch? [:D]

Rook

[Berkut]

Well, that is kind of my point, isn't it Erik?

That if all those things exist, it sould not have been necessary to "buff up" the South.

If it is necessary to buff the South in order to make them capable of winning even with those kinds of voctory conditions, then I submit that they need to be further tweaked, or the game has failed to simulate some other aspect(s) that would, or should, slow the Union effort to conquer them.

I suspect part of the problem is the Southern fanbois who want the South to be "balanced" by letting them fight on equal terms with the North, rather than fighting a delaying action to stave off the inevitable.

That, and the testing focus being on Human vs. AI, which covers up a lot of balance issues. You just see Hard Sarge kicking ass on either side, and it seems all good...

Still want to know what the deal is with the staff ratings, btw...do you have any insight on that Erik?

[Maltsensation]

I have looked this post over and have gleaned the real question to be; What settings within the context of the current version and options will approximate a reasonably accurate start for both the north and the south? I like the idea of being able to start with the conditions historically available and make decisions that will effect/change history. Can I do a better job than Jeff or Abe with the resources they had to begin the war?

This thread has suggested that the starting settings need to be tweaked up for a better Union economy and down for the CSA. The biggest advantage that the south had during the war was early recognition of quality leadership and a zeal of the troops for a cause. I want to manage this small advantage and expand an economy that might sqeek by and even make a foray into the north. I want to struggle militarily as the union due to a largely inept war department and leadership. I want to manage a southern economy and hopefully keep things together long enough to fend off a northern offensive that is sure to come. I want to build a northern economy that will create an army to invade the south.

Any suggestions for getting a reasonably historically accurate start? Is there a mod that does it? (I have downloaded the William Amos July 1861mod - seems reasonable, but this mod only changes a few unit and starting building issues.)

[Gil R.]

So I was away from the forum for a week while attending a conference, and you guys created a 9-page thread?!?!?!? After two days of putting it off, I finally read/skimmed through the whole #*#!*&$!#^ thing. (I hope my Moderator powers won't be stripped away for using the word "#*#!*&$!#^.") I'll only respond by saying that for the next patch we hope to have a new, "historical" standard scenario to complement the current standard scenario. Erik is correct that changing settings should help to create a more historical disparity when playing the game currently, but it does seem that having a scenario that is imbalanced to start with and can be tweaked further would be the way to go.

As I've written elsewhere, we would very much value SPECIFIC input on what changes should be made for such a scenario.

[Twotribes]

Specific change....

Population of all cities such that with all options on, one can build historical troop levels.

Increased chance for muster ( both sides)

Decrease the political hit for muster ( some suggest no hit, I would suggest drop it to 2 rather than 5)

Increase the allowed pools from 500 to 1500.

decrease the cost of Mansions,

decrease the cost of containers.

Increase the base starting horse setting for the Union.

Decrease the max allowed research gift from european powers ( max shouldnt exceed 25 in a single turn)

eliminate most of the starting Confederate navy ( leave both fleet counters each with one ship counter) Move one fleet counter to the gulf.

I dont know the specifics on economy but my take is the North should have more money and more Iron then it has.

How is that for a start?

[chris0827]

Give the main confederate army in Virginia the 40,000 men it had instead of the 103,000 men the game gives them now.

[hotdog433]

well it would have been reasonably closer to 90,000 as it would have included the richmond garrison troops in the shennodoah valley

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Specific change....

Population of all cities such that with all options on, one can build historical troop levels.

Increased chance for muster ( both sides)

Decrease the political hit for muster ( some suggest no hit, I would suggest drop it to 2 rather than 5)

Increase the allowed pools from 500 to 1500.

decrease the cost of Mansions,

Put a couple of "forts" in New York to match the rest of the Eastern seaboard

decrease the cost of containers. Also make them basically the same "ratings" for both sides..., with the Union perhaps having a slight edge in "logistics".

Increase the base starting horse setting for the Union.

Decrease the max allowed research gift from european powers ( max shouldnt exceed 25 in a single turn)

eliminate most of the starting Confederate navy ( leave both fleet counters each with one ship counter) Move one fleet counter to the gulf. Eliminating the whole thing would be better and more realistic. The South just didn't have anything that could function as a "Navy" in game terms.

I dont know the specifics on economy but my take is the North should have more money and more Iron then it has.

How is that for a start?

And if you guys are "up" for a system change..., "Conscription" should not be available as a choice to start---and it should create political problems if/when you want to pass the "Conscription Acts"

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: hotdog433

well it would have been reasonably closer to 90,000 as it would have included the richmond garrison troops in the shennodoah valley

Those men are already there. I'm talking about the main army at Manassas.

[rook749]

Specific change....

Polulation numbers are incorrect.

White Free Colored Slave Total Military
Union* 21,475,373 355,310 0,432,650 22,339,989 4,559,872
CSA 05,447,220 132,760 3,521,110 09,103,332 1,064,193
*includes MO and KY, DC, and territories

KY 919,484 010,684 0,225,483 1,155,684 180,589

Notes:
[1] Total includes other racial/ethnic groups.
[2] White males aged 18-45
[3] VA includes the present state of WV
[4] White includes "half-breeds."


Which gives a 4.5 1 edge if you count slaves for both sides. In game the Union has 162 Population points versus 74 Population points for the CSA. Which gives the Union a 2.1 to 1 edge.

Now, I do understand that the CSA did mobilize almost all of its men of military age and the Union not near that percentage (I can’t find any stattitics for this at the moment) as a large number of men we used to support the war effort or were against the war. So how much of edge they should have is debatable but I think 2.1 to 1 is too low.

I’d prefer to see that the edge was closer to 4.5 to 1 and have the population modifers option be used to contain the Union (maybe make this so this option can apply only the the Union?)

Anyone else have any ideas?

Rook

[Twotribes]

Actually I have no problem with making the population versus production option only apply to the Union IF the numbers were right. Make it so that at about half the population gone the Union begins to feel the effects in production scaling from there.

[Mr. Z]

Yes, these population and resource figures are right in line with our original research, i.e. what we're considering including in a "historical" scenario.

[TNVA]

True historical accuracy can never be achieved by those who already have the hindsight of history if the knowledge changes the accuracy of the history. Such is the situation with the Civil War.

If you choose to make the actors (and other particulars) historically accurate, a player's knowledge of those actors and particulars will give a player advantages not given to the player's historical counterpart. How can a simulation be considered historically accurate if the players can exercise decision with knowledge and hindsight not available to their historical counterparts, where those decisions have a significant impact on the outcome of the war?

In order to simulate the strategic leader's position, the game must create uncertainty where historical hindsight and knowledge already give us the answer. The only way to do that would be to modify (change) that which we know to be historically true. In so doing, we would no longer be historically accurate with regard to actor and particulars, but we may achieve historical accuracy in modeling the complexity of the leader's decision in an uncertain world.

In short, we can't have our cake and eat it to. A tradeoff must be made.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: TNVA

In order to simulate the strategic leader's position, the game must create uncertainty where historical hindsight and knowledge already give us the answer. The only way to do that would be to modify (change) that which we know to be historically true. In so doing, we would no longer be historically accurate with regard to actor and particulars, but we may achieve historical accuracy in modeling the complexity of the leader's decision in an uncertain world.

Yes.

I really could care less whether a game faithfully recreates the number of horseshoes present in the Union depot at Poughkeepsie on February 13, 1863. Better to try to capture of the fog of uncertainty that surrounded the guy who was trying to figure out what to do with them.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: TNVA

True historical accuracy can never be achieved by those who already have the hindsight of history if the knowledge changes the accuracy of the history. Such is the situation with the Civil War.

If you choose to make the actors (and other particulars) historically accurate, a player's knowledge of those actors and particulars will give a player advantages not given to the player's historical counterpart. How can a simulation be considered historically accurate if the players can exercise decision with knowledge and hindsight not available to their historical counterparts, where those decisions have a significant impact on the outcome of the war?

In order to simulate the strategic leader's position, the game must create uncertainty where historical hindsight and knowledge already give us the answer. The only way to do that would be to modify (change) that which we know to be historically true. In so doing, we would no longer be historically accurate with regard to actor and particulars, but we may achieve historical accuracy in modeling the complexity of the leader's decision in an uncertain world.

In short, we can't have our cake and eat it to. A tradeoff must be made.

Yes, I see your point, rather then make a game that allows one to follow the actually war, lets arrange the game so the loser actually has all the advantages. Lets strip the winner of his advantages BUT still require him to do what he had to do historically ( now with much less). Lets buff up the loser so that instead of trying desperately to hold on against a numerical and economically superior enemy, better organized to boot, lets fix it so that they can in fact go on the offensive and actually run all over the north.

Giveing the North what they had historicall? bad idea, not good for game balance. Providing the south with advantages they didnt have? Great Idea.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: TNVA
If you choose to make the actors (and other particulars) historically accurate, a player's knowledge of those actors and particulars will give a player advantages not given to the player's historical counterpart.

True, but this is true of all historically-based games. I don't really see it as a problem, and there's only one way to avoid it, which is rarely if ever used: to vary the basic parameters of the game at random with every gamestart. For instance, the real commanders had little idea of the practical effect of the new rifled weapons their troops started to use. To model this, you'd have to vary the characteristics of each weapon type at random with every gamestart.

If the game parameters are not historical, but are the same with every game, then the players will soon learn what they are, from experience (and perhaps from reading the manual). So you might just as well make them historical.

I'd be content with a game that gave me the parameters as they were historically, and allowed me to take whatever benefit I could from hindsight. With the exception of the leaders: to know the skills of each general in advance removes such a major element of the war that I prefer to have some way of avoiding it.

[chris0827]

Maybe there can be a game about Gemany vs Poland in 1939 and we can give Poland 6 armored divisions and 2,000 planes to even things out.