Just wondering

[morganbj]

Just to insult my friends to the east ... what economy?

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

One of the problems I've encountered over the years is the term "Civil War."  Loosely defined a civil war is the people against the government (that's a REAL loose definition and there are other possibilities, as well), the reasons could be varied.  Term includes groups of citizens who want independence from the mother country.  Using that term helps to cloud the issues about the situation in the early 1860's rather significantly.

I repeat that there are grey zones and you're right, it sometimes it depends on who wins; for example, the 1776 war would have been surely labeled "New England rebellion" if England won (as you surely know George Washington's troops were rebels for GB government).

On the other hand, the original definition of civil war is and remains: a conflict between civiles , that is citizens of Rome.
From there the definition "civil war" was expanded and adopted for any armed conflict between factions that are (or, obviously, were before the start of the war) part of the same political entity. It could be that the definition was already existing in the ancient Greece, but nonenthless no one calls a civil war a "polis war"....that Greek term is already used for "political war" [:)].

In the end, if you have to give a label to the North-South conflict as it happened....the label is civil war.

Back to war of the Roses, I didn't want to suggest any similitaries between it and the American civil war, apart the fact that are both civil war. I was using it as an example to support my opinion that any civil war has the same objective - the political, economical, or physical annhilation of the other as a faction.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
Just to insult my friends to the east ... what economy?

Sorry, I didn't get it [&:]

[morganbj]

Eric,
 
Don't get hung up on the size of the force to invade Galveston, just make it large enough that the South could not resist it in the game.  Say 100,000.  Make it 50,000.
 
My point is that, historically, the Union tried to invade the area around Galveston several times.  Once, a single battery held of a vastly superior force steaming up Sabine Bay.  Another time, a small group of militia captured an invading force on Galveston Island, sending the remnants retreating back to New Orleans.  BTW, this should be made into a full-length feature film, a comedy, as both sides diplayed tremendous stupidity during the affair
 
Additional forces might have swung both in favor of the Union easily.  Except of course, they didn't  Why?
 
Well, they just didn't have all that many available.  They would have had to wait for months for additional troops from the east.  More importantly, the terrain simply would not allow it.  Militarily useful approaches are very limited, and a much larger force would just have been more effective.
 
But, in the game, 50,000, or 75,000 men could be transported to the area and landed, capturing galveston.  I contend that that in real life it would have been near impossible.  We can argue that point, but you cetainly must concede that a game simply cannot model everything.  Whatever is not modeled, or not effectively modeled, COULD be the critical factor in something being possible or not.  That's really my point.
 
I have to ask myself this:  Could the South have defeated sufficient armies to be albe to have occupied the entire mid-west?  No chance.  Yet, it is possible in the game.  It may not be likely, but it is possible.  A good Union player could prevent it I'm sure, but it IS possible.  I'm only saying that it MORE possible in the game than in reality, because if it was actually impossible, but remotely possible in the game, it's not refecting reality.  That's not really a criticism of the game.  It's merely a recognition that the game does not model everything, allowing unforseen possibilites to sneak in here and there.
 
This true of every game designed.  FOF does a much better job than most, but the models used are, after all, just code.  As I read the forums about other games I own, I constantly see folks who say that "the supply system should ..." (FITE in TOAW), "the production system should ..." (in WITP), and on and on.  All I'm saying is that the game simply does not, and cannot mirror reality.
 
I once owned a boardgame about Barbarossa.  After playing it a few times, I had difficulty recreating the historical German advance,  So, I removed all the Russian forces and tried again.  The obvious became clear.  The German's just didn't have the movement points to make it happen.  I mean, according to the game, the Germans could not get to Moscow if they were on holiday.  I understand the reason for this: play balance, trying to make sure that the Germans didn't win too frequently.  So, game mechanics were apparently adjusted to slightly retard the German advance.
 
What's funny was that there was a scenario included that had German starting locations further east that was even possible using the game rules and an earlier starting position for the campaign.
 
A final example:  The Doolittle raids aren't possible in WITP.  Maybe one could send in a suicide carrier and do a little raid, but the effects on the morale of the two countries just is not there.  This is very minor given the scope of the game, but it does help make my point.
 
I know I've strayed from FOF, but I hope it helps to make my point clear:  The game helps one to understand reality, but this understanding is limited by what is modeled in the game.
 
Remember what I said originally.  Maybe the effects of the national will figures need to be modified.  Once the South destroys a half dozen armies, capturing 30 brigades or more, would the North keep sending in more and more troops for the same fate?  The game says yes.  Given the attitudes about the war at the time, I wonder.
 
Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Have an option that would force the North and/or South into pursuing historical objectives to a certain degree.  Maybe using points of some type, maybe bonusus of some kind, I don't know.  As the Southern player, I would love to play knowing that the North wanted to cut me in half by taking the Mississippi as they historically did.  While fending him off in Virginia, I'd like to see if I could shift sufficient forces to make him pay dearly.  Currently, the Union gives up way too early after a few significant Southern victories and just seems to abandon the river altogether, leaving the mid-west open to invasion.  I really don't think that would have happened.  I think Lincoln would have fired Grant and sent McLellan over to take over,  (Just kidding about "Little Mac."), adding a few more troops to the effort.  The Mississippi was that integral to the North's effort.  (I'm talking about the AI here, not against a human player.  A human player and I could agree to the objective restriction ahead of time.  Although the option could be available in a PBEM game also, somehow.)
 
I know.  It's time for me to shut up ....
 

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

... A civil war is a war between two factions that (were) part of the same political entity; the fact that soldiers (the poor cannon fodder) agree or not on their leaders' vision doesn't matter. It's a civil war anyway ...

By that definition, does Catholic vs Protestant and/or Sunni vs. Shia constitute civil wars?

It depends if they're part of the same political entity:
if catholic and protestant are both part of England, yes.
If sunni and Shia are both part of Iraq, yes.
But of course there are grey areas, where a confict can be defined both a religious or civil war ...

Catholics and Protestants were both part of the political entity called the Roman Catholic church, whose leader had his own army and personal (Swiss) guard, i.e., soldiers. To an infidel like myself, Sunni and Shia are both part of the political entity known as Islam, although they may disagree amongst themselves as to which of them better represents that entity.

But re your/the definition of a civil war, why would they need to reside in the same nation, England or Iraq, respectively, when they already exist in the same geopolitical sphere, i.e., the Islamic haran. Soldiers of the North and South didn't need to reside in the same "state" to fight one another, all they needed was to be near some common ground in dispute.

I am not necessarilly disagreeing w/your definition of a civil war, simply applying it, albeit w/a broad brush.

[morganbj]

Sorry, I now see you're in Italy and may not get the joke.

The economy there historically has been a little depressed for a long time, more than a hundred years. (This is also true of other portions of the South.) Some argue it goes back to the destruction that happened during the war itself. Today, it still lags a little behind.

It's not as bad as I implied, though. I know, I lived there for three years. In fact, it's not really any different than most other places in the US. It was just a little jab at those folks over there. In Texas we always tell our friends from Lousiana "Y'all come on over here if you need a job" just to infuriate them a little. It's just regional humor. We're famous for it in the US. In fact, if you want to hear really good regional humor, there's none better then the jokes Lousianans tell about themselves.

Lousiana is really a great state and the people are wonderful. Vist there sometime, especially the out of the way places. You'll be treated like a king. In fact, they may make you one. (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist another jab.)

[morganbj]

One last shot at the term "Civil War."
 
My point is that it was NOT citizens against their government, nor citizens against other citizens of the same government.  The South always considered their state as their nation.  The US was, and technically still is, a givernment of "Soverign" states.  Once they seceeded, they believed that their only government was the state.  They joined the Confederacy after the seceede, not before.  The Confederacy was not well supported by the Southern states; and the governors had widely varying opinions about how much the new national government really controlled things.  That's pretty well modeled in the game.
 
So, it's really nation against nation, according to the South.
 
By the way, the term "Civil War" is used because the North didn't believe that the states had a right to seceed.  Since they had no right, they were not legally a new nation.  In fact, their state governments were no longer valid.  Since they had no legal state governments, any conflict must be citizens against the government.  (One wonders, if they had never really seceeded, why they had to apply for readmission.  One of the conundrums of history.)
 
The Southerners just had a different view.  BTW, this is still argued today.  Many a doctoral dissertation has addressed this issue, as has hundreds of articles injournals.  The current conventional widom, at least among most academicians of the period, is heading toward the fact that they had a right to secede.  This could change at any moment.  Stay tuned.

[morganbj]

Boy!
 
This conversation is one way to get the posting count up.

[fvianello]

By the way, the term "Civil War" is used because the North didn't believe that the states had a right to seceed. Since they had no right, they were not legally a new nation. In fact, their state governments were no longer valid. Since they had no legal state governments, any conflict must be citizens against the government. (One wonders, if they had never really seceeded, why they had to apply for readmission. One of the conundrums of history.)

To get back at what we were saying before, the American Civil War is one of the few cases were the winners, despite calling the other side "rebels" during the war, didn't force the definition "rebellion" at the end of it.

Just to add a little spice to my view, in every civil wa both sides call themselves "legitimate" and call the other side "rebels" or "illegal" or "unlegitimate" or whatever. That's because a civil war is always, by its nature, a political war.

That's the primary reason that makes all civil wars "total" wars. If the problem is the possibility of the enemy faction to express and use its political power , the only way to win is to completely obliterate it as coherent political entity

So, once the war has started, every side will use any economic, military or violent way to put the other in a condition of political non-existence.

And in that, the north-south war is no different.

The current conventional widom, at least among most academicians of the period, is heading toward the fact that they had a right to secede

And what if, after getting or forcing an ok from Lincoln about the secession, Carolina decides that after all they don't need all the deadweigth of the other states ? I think that Davis would have been a little upset and probably would revisit his views about secession[ 8|]

P.S.: Ok, now I get the joke [:D]

[fvianello]

But re your/the definition of a civil war, why would they need to reside in the same nation, England or Iraq, respectively, when they already exist in the same geopolitical sphere, i.e., the Islamic haran. Soldiers of the North and South didn't need to reside in the same "state" to fight one another, all they needed was to be near some common ground in dispute.

I am not necessarilly disagreeing w/your definition of a civil war, simply applying it, albeit w/a broad brush.

Again, it's not "my" definition. It's "the" definition.

civil war
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: "The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul" Bill Powell.
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[sullafelix]

I have two dictionaries that state that India is a democracy while the USA is a Republic ( which is correct ), India has a parliamentary system which is nowhere near a democracy using the standard definition. So strict word definitions are a lot of times not used in history or they are used the way authors wanted to use them.

In the broadest scope of the word the Wars of the roses could be considered a civil war. I have always read and used a " civil war " as two different parts of the same country warring over political or religious beliefs. So a serf fighting in England because he was owned by a noble on the York side, I really don't consider him part of a civil war.

Your other example of parliaments fight against Charles I comes closer to the target in my eyes. But again, it was mostly noble against noble until Cromwell and the new model army got involved that it became much more ideological.

I have rechecked my #'s and you are quite correct about the 1813 campaign. Sorry for the fax paus. But, still the coalition wasn't waging war on france to conquer and divide it between the winners. Other than putting france back to it's 1792 borders and removing Napoleon they made no other conditions except some monetary ones on France. Itwould be akin the the North winning the war and exacting a monetary condition and giving Tennesee back to the Union. Again the point I was trying to make was the shear scope of trying to conquer and garrison half of the existing US ( at the time ). It would have been much like Germany conquering and garrisoning france in 1870. It would have been unthinkable at that time.

By the way nice forum name one of my favorites. I did however read it wrong at first and thought it was HamBarca and thought it was for Hamilcar.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

But re your/the definition of a civil war, why would they need to reside in the same nation, England or Iraq, respectively, when they already exist in the same geopolitical sphere, i.e., the Islamic haran...

Again, it's not "my" definition. It's "the" definition.

OK, but if you had more carefully read all of my quote -- which I have now put in bold -- you would see that I am not arguing that your definition is any different from "the" definition, in this case, the definition(s) from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

From American Heritage, it looks like (2) would describe the ongoing civil war in Islam between Sunni and Shi'a: A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization.

I believe you referred to this organization as the "political entity," which in this case would be Islam.

My point is simply this: if a Sunni from Jordan and a Shia from Iran both came to Iraq and fought against one another, they would still be participants in a civil war, even though neither combatants were native -- "part of" -- Iraq.

I would imagine that some able-bodied immigrants to the US during the time of FoF were inducted straight into the Army right off the boat, making them participants in the Civil War, although they were not native to America.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

... This conversation is one way to get the posting count up.

You may make Matrix Hero before this thread is over!

[sullafelix]

Like I stated hats off to Matrix. I used to post in a few flight sim forums and another forum that I already mentioned and the putting it nicely, incivility was astounding. I'm still surprised I'm posting at all given the crap I had to put up with just airing my thoughts.Thanks people for making this exchange of ideas actually enjoyable and not like having my teeth pulled.

[hotdog433]

well damn didnt this thread get a little off topic i enjoyed reading it though

[morganbj]

Me, too.  But, I'm checking out at this point.  We'll be counting the angels on the head of a pin of we keep going.
 

[Erik Rutins]

BJ,

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
Don't get hung up on the size of the force to invade Galveston, just make it large enough that the South could not resist it in the game.  Say 100,000.  Make it 50,000.

Ok, got it - that's much more reasonable.

My point is that, historically, the Union tried to invade the area around Galveston several times.  Once, a single battery held of a vastly superior force steaming up Sabine Bay.  Another time, a small group of militia captured an invading force on Galveston Island, sending the remnants retreating back to New Orleans.  BTW, this should be made into a full-length feature film, a comedy, as both sides diplayed tremendous stupidity during the affair

True, though keep in mind that this was sort of the "Alaska" of Union military commands at the time. The question is, if Lincoln had decided it was a high priority and had appointed Grant to lead an amphibious invasion of Texas, could the logistical obstacles have been overcome based on what they had available historically in terms of ships, training and economy? Would Grant have been as easily deterred once he arrived? I tend to think the results here were the sum of what was put into the area by both sides in terms of troops and leadership, but there's no question the Confederates put in some impressive performances against seemingly tough odds here as elsewhere.

Well, they just didn't have all that many available.  They would have had to wait for months for additional troops from the east.  More importantly, the terrain simply would not allow it.  Militarily useful approaches are very limited, and a much larger force would just have been more effective.

They could have sent it though, had the Commander-in-Chief decided it was a priority. Historically though, Lincoln had less influence over such things by far than the gamer actually has. Recall his many strong suggestions to go for the Knoxville area and how long it took for those to be realized.

But, in the game, 50,000, or 75,000 men could be transported to the area and landed, capturing galveston.  I contend that that in real life it would have been near impossible.  We can argue that point, but you cetainly must concede that a game simply cannot model everything.  Whatever is not modeled, or not effectively modeled, COULD be the critical factor in something being possible or not.  That's really my point.

I absolutely concede that point, but I also think that the Union if it really put its mind to it, could have done it. For other reasons than simply the logistics of transporting and landing them there, it would likely have been a pointless exercise and possible disaster. In the game, it's not much different honestly. Once you land them there, if you try to march inland you're getting no supply. Only by capturing Galveston and then staying there right next to the coast (with an adjacent fleet for the +1 supply) are you really able to keep a force like that intact. Once you try to spread out, you can't "conquer" since you have no land link-up and your forces will pretty quickly start losing supplies and attriting. I think you can in the process take Texas largely out of the Confederacy, but that's not exactly a huge blow given the force investment.

I have to ask myself this:  Could the South have defeated sufficient armies to be albe to have occupied the entire mid-west?  No chance.  Yet, it is possible in the game.  It may not be likely, but it is possible.  A good Union player could prevent it I'm sure, but it IS possible.  I'm only saying that it MORE possible in the game than in reality, because if it was actually impossible, but remotely possible in the game, it's not refecting reality.  That's not really a criticism of the game.  It's merely a recognition that the game does not model everything, allowing unforseen possibilites to sneak in here and there.

I don't think the South has any real chance of this against a good Union player. I think it's more accurate to say that this can be a weak spot for the Union AI vs. a good Confederate player. I don't think something being remotely possible is a hit on the game either, by the way. I think where we philosophically differ is that because the game allows the player to do such incredibly unwise things (that his historical counterpart and most players would never do), if the player does them the game should allow him to find out the price of folly. If the Union historically had stripped the West of most forces in order to fight in the East, could a sizeable Confederate army have made significant inroads? Sure, but the whole game is a big "what if" and each point where it branches from history makes more alternatives possible. What if the South manages to convince England or France to join the war or at least gets them to the point that the South is receiving much more aid than it did historically? What if the South breaks the blockade by getting enough Ironclads finished earlier? What if Grant's army is defeated before Buell arrives and surrenders en masse at Shiloh with their backs to the river? etc., etc. - the fun of these historical games is that you can really end up exploring some remote possibilities if you take enough of the "roads not taken" historically. I think that's a feature.

I once owned a boardgame about Barbarossa.  After playing it a few times, I had difficulty recreating the historical German advance,  So, I removed all the Russian forces and tried again.  The obvious became clear.  The German's just didn't have the movement points to make it happen.  I mean, according to the game, the Germans could not get to Moscow if they were on holiday.  I understand the reason for this: play balance, trying to make sure that the Germans didn't win too frequently.  So, game mechanics were apparently adjusted to slightly retard the German advance.

Sure, but that's a pretty brute force way of balancing things. I think FOF takes a softer approach - do you prefer these hard limits or the FOF style where it's remotely possible for the germans to take Moscow, but various other factors make it very hard or unlikely, as it was historically? I much prefer that approach, as historically there was nothing preventing the Germans moving to Moscow in the time they had. Heck, it's not that long a drive from Berlin to Moscow that you need six months to do it... but there were a lot of other factors at work (not the least of which were the Soviet Army, weather and supplies) that slowed them to a crawl.

I know I've strayed from FOF, but I hope it helps to make my point clear:  The game helps one to understand reality, but this understanding is limited by what is modeled in the game.

I agree with that statement entirely in principle, it's when you get into the specifics that I have some quibbles.

Remember what I said originally.  Maybe the effects of the national will figures need to be modified.  Once the South destroys a half dozen armies, capturing 30 brigades or more, would the North keep sending in more and more troops for the same fate?  The game says yes.  Given the attitudes about the war at the time, I wonder.

Ok, but "I wonder" is not the same as "we know for sure". In the game, if the North loses enough decisive battles to have lost half a dozen armies and 30 brigades or more, the system will have the Northern NW at -12 due to all those decisive battle losses and likely loss of territory too (you can't lose that many battles and armies and be doing well). FOF doesn't directly penalize for each brigade lost, but it does penalize for losing the battle and the likely results that multiple lost battles will cause. At that point, your replacements are low morale, unmotivated and in much lower numbers than earlier. As the North, you'd probably be in a desperate fight at that point to stop Confederate advances into the Union and you'd definitely lose the game when the 1864 election came around.

Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Have an option that would force the North and/or South into pursuing historical objectives to a certain degree.  Maybe using points of some type, maybe bonusus of some kind, I don't know.  As the Southern player, I would love to play knowing that the North wanted to cut me in half by taking the Mississippi as they historically did.

See, here's where we start disagreeing. Those options and objectives are already in there! The North gets 2VP for conquering the Mississippi, in addition the CSA loses ALL income from all provinces west of the Mississippi as soon as the North takes the last stretch of the river. On top of that, if you've got the river, you've got all the cities on it, which includes some very nice prizes, also worth VPs, NW bonuses for the North and penalties for the South. Plus there's another state capitol (Jackson) right next to the river which you'll likely get too. In FOF as it is now, taking the Mississippi is a very worthwhile goal.

The blockade as well is worth 4VPs for the Union if fully implemented and I believe in v1.10.10 it gives the Union +1 NW each year if it's fully in effect.

While fending him off in Virginia, I'd like to see if I could shift sufficient forces to make him pay dearly.  Currently, the Union gives up way too early after a few significant Southern victories and just seems to abandon the river altogether, leaving the mid-west open to invasion.  I really don't think that would have happened.

There's the game and then there's the AI. I know you realize that, but it's a key point - I think the FOF AI is excellent when compared to other AIs, but it is not as good as a good human player and you need to separate what you see it do vs. what a human player would do (and what the game would reward him for doing). The game does already have these objectives, if the AI isn't able to exploit them against you even on higher difficulty levels then you really are ready for a PBEM game. FOF via PBEM against a good opponent is one of the best wargaming experiences I've had and I highly recommend it.

Regards,

- Erik

[morganbj]

Erik,

I guess to sum this whole line of discussion up I'll just make a few incredibly boring responses.

I understand how the victory point system works.  And, I totally agree that the AI is very good compared to other games.  It does seem to be much better strategically than COG, for example, but maybe that's just my impression.  I just feel that there were historical restrictions to military operations that are not, and can not be modeled effectively.  The one that jumps to mind at this moment is the political side of things.  Lincoln had much less control than the game shows, but the only way to come close to reality is to have dozens of human players on a side.  Hundreds would be better.  Each would have a set of personal objectives that may, mor may not, support the overall national strategy.  This would be a programming nightmare to put in an AI, uless someone can find a very clever way to to it.  (I've done quite a bit of programming myself, so I understand the difficulties here.)

Second, you stated very clearly one of my points.  That is, the player has the ability to instantaneously change the whoe direction of the war.  That is one aspect of the game that would also be difficult to program into the AI, but it is the source of some of my comments.  By having this control, the player (and by extension the AI, to the degree that the AI is programmed) can take historically improbable actions.  The game does control this reasonably well, but it is a shortcoming we'll have to live with.  (The programming problem again, as well as a group of people living today trying to "understand" the situation back then, but without any experience of actually living back then.  This is a big problem when people use their values, experiences, and knowledge to analyze what happen in the past.  In historical literature, it's rampant.  I can expand on this, but I think you see my point.)

I think we agree on much more than you might realize.  I also feel that you are trying to defend the product when there is no attempt on my part to really criticise the game.  I think it's actually an outstanding product.  It is enjoyable, reasonably faithful to the period, and has occupied my time for countless hours, and many more to come.

My main point, admittedly inexpertly stated, is that it should not be viewed as a true simulation.  No game can.  It can give some insight. (And does, especially the role of the Governors.)  It can generate interest in the period.  It can even answer some questions for those not too familiar with the conflict.  But I don't think people should assume that if it can be done in the game, then it could have been done in real life.  Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.

Back when I was in the army (in 1978, I think it was), the staff of the 82nd Airborne wargamed a new anti-armor concept that they believed would allow relatively small light forces to not only delay, but actually stop masses of Soviet armor.  They used a very sophisticated set of table top rules that was a pretty good model for operational combat.  That system was used all over the world to train officers and senior NCOs in tactics and operations.  It was very detailed in that losses were allocated at the single tank/fireteam level.  Different weapon types, troop quality, terrain, weather.  It was all there -- mostly.  According to this "simulation" their system would work brilliantly.

The armored brigade I was in trained to emulate Soviet tactics for 6 months to give the whole idea a "real" field test near Pensacola.  Yes, we put a few wrinkles in because since no one really knew what the Russians would do tactically (after all, they had conducted no large scale operations for more than 30 years at that time, so we'd really be up a creek if they had added those wrinkles themselves).  We were remarkably proficient at being "Soviets."  BTW, the National Traing Center was still in its infancy then, relatively speaking.  As we trained, we had no idea what the new scheme was.  It was to be a compete surprise.

The test was to last a month.  It began with an airdrop, two or three days of cosolidation, then our attack.  I was a tank company commander then and my company alone captured an entire boot batallion, an artillery bn being foolishly airlifted to an LZ right next to where my company had set up a camoflaged overnight position, and was within a quarter of a mile of the division TOC when the war was suspended for a brief period so they could relocate.  Other units have similar tales to tell.  After a week it was declared over, but was really over after about three or four days.  We just flat bulldozed them.  Patton, Rommel, Jackson, Guderian, Manstein, all would have been proud.

Why?  We'll, obviously reality in the game wasn't modeled very well.  The game considered most things technical, but couldn't model everything.  Those minor a things (one being the size and number of trees that would prevent armor from operating) caused the 82nd boys to develop a doctrine that was virtually useless.  The game certainly couldn't account for the interactive effects of these model deficiencies and our intentions. This interaction increased our capabilities many times over what they thought they were.  They went back to the drawing board and eventually produced something that is still used today.

Maybe I should divert here to bring this into situations you're certainly familiar with, leaving FOF for the last time, and mention SPWAW, the Campaign Series, and even the SPI modern tactical game the army bought in the '70s.  (I forget the name.)  As an experienced tactician I can say they are all pretty close to reality in some regards, but woefully inadequate in others.  Poor modeling of forward observers makes East/West Front very unrealistic, as an example.  SPWAW, however, does a decent job of that.  But all of them have a fatal flaw in that once the opposing side gets creamed, they always continue the battle to extinction, usually very aggressively.  Sure, it could happen.  Once maybe in a three or four year campaign.  But not every time.  These games could be made better by having the AI recognize when they're being utterly destroyed and start to pull back.  But, because some leaders might not respond that way, sometimes they should stop and consolidate, or continue to attack.  It should be different every time.  Comanders really affect the progress of a battle.  This is always poorly modeled, even when an attempt is made to do so.  After all, a human can't be effectively reduced to three or four factors that are related to the combat/movement procedures found in the code.

FOF has this problem somewhat with detailed battles.  Once my own unit effectivenss is high enough, if I'm not too outnumbered, I can murder the enemy, capturing dozens of units, then scrambling to chase them down once they break.  it's alomost the same battle everytime.  It's fun.  I enjoy it.  But, what I really do is recognize that it's just a way, within the game, to have another victory that adds to the strategic situation.  BTW, early on, the battles are much more challenging.  They do not resemble the real battles of the period at a tactical level very well.  (Yes, I know.  Up the difficulty level.  That's not my point.)

Don't misunderstand me here.  This is not a criticism.  I admire what the game does in many ways.  These are not flaws.  Not really.  I know that compromises have to be made when a program is written, because everything simply cannot be modeled.  One day, probably after I go to the great smoke-filled battlefeld in the sky, computer games will be much, much closer to reality.  The technology today is much better than even 10 years ago.  But it will take a lot more computing power, more powerful programming languages, better peripherals to see hear and feel the battles, and much more.  (The army had CATS, Combined Arms Training System, at Ft. Leavenworth a few years ago that was very, very close to being in combat.  $10 million is just too pricey for my budget.  I'm sure they have even better ones today)

I'm going to end this discussion with this.  I've spent much more time that I ever intended.

Thanks for your time (and I guess a lot of other bored folks' time, as well).

[Gil R.]

BJMorgan,
I find your comments quite interesting (and enjoyed the tale from your army days). Right now, we have to work on our next two products ("Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition" and the still unrevealed new game), so we cannot do intense work on the FOF AI. However, we do hope to get around to a FOF expansion one of these days, and would welcome your thoughts for improvements. When the time comes, you might want to volunteer to become a beta-tester. (Right now we're not adding new ones, since we have enough people for our present needs.)

[morganbj]

I'm not really asking you to change the AI.  My comments were just observations, not suggestions.  Again, they were just to caution those who make too many connections between game and reality.  And this will be the absolute LAST post on this topic from me.  (Unless there's a question.)
 
The question was asked here, and in thousands of other venues:  What if Jackson had lived?  How would it have affected the battle of Gettysburg?  The war?  This leads to: Can we use FOF to find out?
 
Terrible Swift Sword had an option to do just that.  So, if we put the jackson counter on the board, we can get an answer to those questions?  Of course not.  Jackson was more than Initiative Radius, Morale Bonus, Combat Bonus, and Movement points (Or whatever the counter numbers were.)  From a game, there's no way we'd ever know.  It might give us a clue, some insight, but even that may be a stretch.  Reality is not numbers, code, subroutines, charts, and tables.  The same is true to one extent or another for all games.  I know you realize this.
 
That, is simply my point.  Discussions about Jackson are great.  I've had that discussion myself many, many times.  But creating a scenario with Jackson at the Wilderness in 1864 to get an answer to the question is pure folly.  have fun with it.  Use it to fuel discussions, but it's still only a scenario in a game.  Everyone should recognize that.
 
I'm going to get back to my WITP game now.  It's another outstanding Matrix product.  If anybody reading this doesn't have it -- get it!!!  From it, I've learned that the allies were better at converting supply points into replacements beacuse they had more base support units to upgrade ports, allowing for larger caches of supplies.
 
....
 
(Just kidding.  That's how the game works.  It's not what happened, of course.)
 
But, like I said in another post above, it does give some powerful insights into why things were done, and for a game of its scale, is remarkably faithful to the conflict.  It would be great to use as a way to teach the importance of logistics, not how they actually worked, of course.  Logisticians would find the whole thing so overly simplified as to be laughable.  Of course, logisticians think they're the most important people involved in modern conflict, because ..... well, they are.
 
Looking forward to the new COG expansion, or whatever it is, by the way.
 
Bye Erik.  Thanks for the conversation.