Fleets and the Mississippi

[ABridgeTooFar]

Does anyone bother to blockade the southern ports with the Union's Navy? It just seems very expensive to build your navy up so that you have three ships blockading every river and city port.

Also, last night my union army finished their "March to Mardi Gras" by capturing New Orleans. They travelled all the way down from Kentucky capturing foods and the river provinces along the way. They did not receive the bonus (kind remember if it was NW or VP) that the Union receives for owning the entire Mississippi River. Is this a bug or am I missing something?

[Twotribes]

Have you actually captured all the RIVER provinces of the Mississippi, or did you just take the land ones?

[decaturkev]

I wish the CSA could get a bonus for occupying the Ohio River provinces.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

I wish the CSA could get a bonus for occupying the Ohio River provinces.

Please explain. Is this based on something historical that I'm not remembering?

As for costs of ships and fleet containers, I believe that we're lowering that in the patch. In the meantime, it's possible to lower costs yourself by modifying one of the datafiles.

[decaturkev]

Of course it is not historical, the Confederacy had liitle influence on the Ohio River, unlike the Mississippi. However, neither is my game when I bring Illionois and Missouri into the Confederacy. I just thought it would be nice get some bonus on the CSA side.

[Twotribes]

Hush, your pointing out the "flaws" in the standard scenarios and the choices made to "balance" the game.

[decaturkev]

But that is one of the endearing "enhancements " of the game, not a "flaw".

[Twotribes]

Absolutely, if one doesnt want to actually fight the real civil war.

[chris0827]

I think the photon torpedos on the confederate ironclads is a nice touch.

[decaturkev]

IMO, to replicate history is boring as wargame. Been there and done that with Avalon Hill and SPI. I want "what if" with realistic alternatives for command decisions other than what actually occurred. That is really intriguing to me. Besides, I enjoy "Old Jack" as a full General with an army in the west taking on all comers with Lee doing defense in the East. "Old Pete" would have loved this game! Besides, history is in the past.

[ABridgeTooFar]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Have you actually captured all the RIVER provinces of the Mississippi, or did you just take the land ones?

I have taken the river provinces only and none of the adjacent land provinces. But I think I read last night that for the bonus I have to have the Mississippi and the port blockade to get the bonus

[christof139]

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why paly waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history.

Chris

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: christof139

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games. "Within reason.., and within the constraints of the realities of the situation". It's only fun and interesting to take on the role of Robert E Lee if you also take on the same challanges as Lee, with the same problems, strengths, and weaknesses.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why play Waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history. Because "should" doesn't mean "absolutely will". That's the challange..., can you make better or different use of the same resources to change the historical results? But if all you want to do is give Napoleon Tanks or some other rediculous advantage he never enjoyed, then you are not playing Waterloo..., you're playing "Dungeons and Dragons" or some other fantasy. Would Robert E. Lee be thought of as one of the Greatest Commanders America ever produced if the South had had equal resources to the North? Of course not. It was Lee's ability to pull victories from impossibie-looking situations of inferiority that made his reputation.

Chris

[Twotribes]

Yup, the point being, dont call it a game of the "american Civil War" when one must modify files and set the options to off the scale positions to even remotely approximate the actual conditions of the 2 sides.

The base should be " what was" or as close as one can get with a game like this. From THERE one uses the settings and modifies files for the "fantasy land" what ifs.

The war was NOT balanced. One can not call a game "the American Civil War" and have balanced sides. One can provide a scenario that does that within a game, but to make the base that defeats the entire premise of the title and the expectation from most buyers.

One shouldnt have to be a Civil War History buff so that they know what to change to get a "historical" feel for what was the conditions in the war. The designers did the research and should have provided that as a scenario at the offset.

Fortunately they appear to be doing JUST that.

[decaturkev]

IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF.

Well except for the oh so minor point that "similiar resources and Political/economic factors" are NOT present unless one IS a history buff and or researches the data available. The game as released CAN provide what you have said, BUT only if the player learns the reality that was present back then, the two basic scenarios are NOT even remotely representative of "similiar resources and Political/economic factors" present during the war in question.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.

Then the "truth in advertising" concept should require it to be called "FORGE OF FREEDOM: A bunch of malarky about a theoretically "equal" struggle between the Northern and Southern United States in the 1860's". Calling it "the American Civil War 1861-65" sort of spoils your arguement

[General Quarters]

To me, it gets old seeing the same "it's not historical" game bashing going on, regardless of the topic of the post. The point has been made, and made again, and made again, sometimes with insulting language. The developers have indicated that they are trying to address whatever points they find valid and addressable. We are all by now quite familiar with your point of view. Repeating it over and over doesn't add anything, except boredom. And it lessens the spirit of civility and community and constructive criticism one likes in a forum. I am not trying to silence anyone, but sometimes self-restraint is a virtue.

[Twotribes]

Yup, but the restraint would it appear be expected from only one side of the arguement.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

To me, it gets old seeing the same "it's not historical" game bashing going on, regardless of the topic of the post. The point has been made, and made again, and made again, sometimes with insulting language. The developers have indicated that they are trying to address whatever points they find valid and addressable. We are all by now quite familiar with your point of view. Repeating it over and over doesn't add anything, except boredom. And it lessens the spirit of civility and community and constructive criticism one likes in a forum. I am not trying to silence anyone, but sometimes self-restraint is a virtue.

Where was insulting language used? I've only seen it from the anti-historical side.