The historical test

[LitFuel]

Let's face it historically anal dudes...you will never...ever... be happy no matter what the "game" makers do..you really won't. You know it , we know it...you have forgotten how to have fun and are stuck playing out history over and over in your heads. You want a movie where you already know the ending..or with little variation as possible. Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea...they never can win....just like the south if you have your way...lol. [:D]

[regularbird]

LitFuel, please do not take this the wrong way but your post sucks.  My guess is if you took a little time to learn about the history of the ACW you may actualy appreciate us HISTORICALLY ANAL DUDES, Dude.

[Berkut]

Lit, posts like yours contribute nothing to the discussion.

Casting those who do not agree with you into a position they would vehemently disavow is cheap and childish.

[chris0827]

I haven't seen a single post by someone saying the South shouldn't be able to win. What forum are you reading?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
Let's face it historically anal dudes...you will never...ever... be happy no matter what the "game" makers do..you really won't. You know it , we know it...you have forgotten how to have fun and are stuck playing out history over and over in your heads. You want a movie where you already know the ending..or with little variation as possible. Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea...they never can win....just like the south if you have your way...lol. [:D]

There are a couple of serious points in this farrago of nonsense.

1. Will we ever be completely satisfied with the historical accuracy of a game? Answer: no, but we may be reasonably satisfied. Nothing is ever perfect, but some things can be good enough.

2. "Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea..." Well, I'm afraid if you set out to make a game out of a piece of history, you can expect criticism of it as a game, and criticism of it as history. It's true that a lot of criticism tends to surface on a forum like this; some of it is petty and shouldn't be taken too seriously. However, any game developer who doesn't accept historical criticism should stick to making abstract games that don't claim to be based on history.

[Roger Neilson II]

Ok, so would you buy a game about tactical warfare in WW2.... lets say Steel Panthers style where the Sherman was upgunned and armoured to be able to take on the Tiger and Panther? Or perhaps where the Germans were not allowed to have 88s because it wasn't fair......

Or how about a naval game of the period where the Kriegsmarine had an equivalent number of warships to the Royal Navy so that it balanced it up?

The fun comes from using the instruments available to the commanders in the right way to overcome the other side - at its most basic its scissors, paper,stone..... a game of stone/stone would be pretty boring.....

If you want a pure game where things are 'balanced' then perhaps you should be buying 'Starfleet Empires of the Galaxy Rangers' or 'Starship Marines of Alpha Centauri.'

Don't rip into people who want a historical simulation.......... and don't fling mud at what has been to date an erudite debate (in the main)

Roger

[Roger Neilson II]

Almost off topic......

Great moments from films.....

1. In The Battle of the Bulge where two sets of Patton tanks charge each other across a wasteland - hey fun!
2. In Cross of Iron, where the German Infantry squad all get transported inside a Hetzer tank destroyer.....
3. In 'Under the Stars and Bars' where John Wayne, dressed in a very similar manner to Nelson breaks the Yankee line with a tugboat towing 100 barges full of several divisions of crack SAS trained CSA troops to land in New York....














Yes, I must admit I made the last one up!

Roger

[christof139]

Great moments from films.....

1. In The Battle of the Bulge where two sets of Patton tanks charge each other across a wasteland - hey fun!
2. In Cross of Iron, where the German Infantry squad all get transported inside a Hetzer tank destroyer.....
3. In 'Under the Stars and Bars' where John Wayne, dressed in a very similar manner to Nelson breaks the Yankee line with a tugboat towing 100 barges full of several divisions of crack SAS trained CSA troops to land in New York....

 
I saw number 3 several times and 1 and 2, but 3 more recently in 'Return of The King movie #3' at Osgiliath those barges and crack(ed) troops were seen. Yup.
 
I just drink coffee now, and an occasional tea, as you can for the reasons see. [&:] This is due to a fewm time local magistrate and me behind the wheel type of deal. At least I told him in more words or less that he and certain laws were an idiot and idiotic respectively. I had to pay but I sure told him anyway, don't know if he quite understood me but he seemed upset and confused so that wa OK. I once belonged to the opposite of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, that is DAMM, Drunks Against Mad Mothers with Alfred E. Newman or Newman of Mad Magazine as the Pres. Overall, looking back over the last decade or so coherently now, I can say it was worth the enjoyment of seeing the lunatic's expression, and he was removed twice by the State from the Judgeship, and the second time permanently and ordered to see a shrink, so my attorney and I were right afterall, he was nuts and rude to too many people and it caught up with His Lordship the Pseudo Judge Bean West of the Pecos, except he hung himself and Judge Bean didn't hang himself just other people. Big difference so I guess Judge Bean and myself and attorney were smarter and right afterall.
 
The Judge somehow reminded me of this one Colonel long ago, but the Colonel was more humane and understanding having some decent humor or humour in the Frenchisized English.
 
Yeah, you have to have some historical accuracies and balance, if not you get bedlam and something that won't sell and may not be challenging. If I want something not challenging I just solo play as usual, because at least I always win and can have things my own selfish way, but I am still bounded by the historical constraints of the game. If too unrealistic and non-historical then it's just a mess, bedlam, a non-seller.
 
Chris [>:]
 
 

[Thresh]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.

Sure, I know what it is. Can I as a Union player implement it in this game? No. Why not? If FoF claims to be a Civil War game then I should be able to emulate one of the key componenets of the war that helped me, as a Northern player win it. Heck, if as a souhtern player I have the option to do the one thing Jefferson Davis never truly considered in Emancipation, then why is a blockade so hard?

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.

Travelling a set path is indeed boring. Thats why games that force a conclusion no matter what you do die out quickly. I don;t think FoF is one of those games. I don't mind "What If's" myself, I think its always a bit of fun to see if I can do better.
However, currently IMO, you cannot do so as a Union player.

When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

My opinion is that in order for it to be a viable game, you have to have a reasonable chance to produce a reasonably historically accurate outcome. If that's possible, then thats a good starting point for a game.

To me, That means as a Southern Player, I could do better than they did historically, hold of the Union longer, survive longer, and maybe due to my briallinace on the battlefield Lincoln will lose the election in 64 and I'll win.

That means as a Northern Player I can do better managing my forces, and force the south to capitulate sooner.

At this point, IMO, the first is to easily done, elections not withstanding.

Thresh

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Well Sarge, two out of three isn't bad, but it's not accurate either, is it?

I've yet to see or read an AAR of all three of those happening in the same game where the computer fights the battles. Lord knows I've tried to do it almost every game I've played as the Union, and I've only been able to take Memphis and Nashville, but Never New Orleans. Must be some "trick" I am missing.

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Queeg,

Any settings you want.

Heres three main goals that the Union achieved

In April 1862, they took New Orleans. didn't bother, I went after the ANV instead
In June 1862, they took Memphis. Done it
In February, 1862, they took Nashville. Done it

I wasn't the Union tester, I was bored while waiting on the next patch, so give the Union a try

Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes?

Now, mind you historically they took New Orleans and New Orleans pretty much without firing a shot. That can't happen in game unless your opponenet or the computer is quite dumb.

Thresh

well, again, for the top, I said I never tried for NO, so I not sure if it is accurate or not

lets see, how is late March of 62 for you

[Twotribes]

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

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
well, again, for the top, I said I never tried for NO, so I not sure if it is accurate or not

lets see, how is late March of 62 for you

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.

[spruce]

well this thread needs a reality check.

How on earth can you check if both parties are taking a historical path ... and what is considered to be historical or unhistorical? And what is considered to be good long term vision and what is considered to be poor long term vision? If the boundary conditions are changing - why chose historical decisions in a game with altered boundary conditions.

Let me give an example ...

If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place) - is that historical or unhistorical ? Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets in the late half of the game and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition for building blockade runners is totally different ... Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters that drove the CSA in that particular game to build ironclads ... should I have said no to building ironclads ? For sure not - if the CSA in those days would have had this kind of option, they perhaps also would have choosen to build some ironclads to break the blockade ...

I agree with the premise of this thread - but it's a rethorical question I must say due to the fact that the boundary conditions are not predictable and the variables in the bigger picture will always decide otherwise.

For sure I wouldn't conclude that this experiment should be used to decide on how to tweak or balance the game. I'm in favour of having one scenario with 100% genuine historical starting setup (the whole picture), but I can't agree on the last line about tweaking and balancing.

It's like Einsteins theorema of the unlimited amount of parallell worlds that exist due to the unlimited amount of variancy of all stuff. In one of those parallell worlds, this game never was made and I'm just happy that the guys of WCS made it all right [:)].

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: spruce

well this thread needs a reality check. Let me give an example ...

If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place) - is that historical or unhistorical ? Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition is totally different. Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters. But you also got five "Ships" and two "Fleet Counters" that are totally a-historic. Given that. building a fleet makes perfect sense.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: spruce

well this thread needs a reality check. Let me give an example ...

If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place) - is that historical or unhistorical ? Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition is totally different. Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters. But you also got five "Ships" and two "Fleet Counters" that are totally a-historic. Given that. building a fleet makes perfect sense.

I see your point - and I support to tweak those numbers - but I was so happy the UK helped me out on naval techs and I was lucky to get ironclad program. I was dying to use those ironclads against the Union. Those ships from the game start had little impact on my naval victory - it was the fact I was able to build new ironclads all together.

I also must say that general Jackson was responsable for these ironclads. Jacksons corps had mauled 3 smaller Union armies so badly, that the Union retreated and left me alone for a long period of time ... My brigades all had good weapons upgrade, so I went for the ironclads that I could afford to pay for ...

Like I said - variables and variancy is important here ... If Jacksons victory (some stroke of luck) wouldn't have been there - the Union would have invaded the Carolina's and those ironclads would have been a dream in the minds of the Confederacy.

other imbalancings things for the moment, and the CSA gets a good deal out of the current setup =

- camps,
- gun pick up,
- blockade runners are too successfull I must say,
- Southern Economy is a bit too easy to "boost" upwards, should be more difficult,
- emancipation act for both sides

[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

[jimwinsor]

I'd wager Hard Sarge could have taken NO even quicker had it been practically undefended, as it was historically.  But as you can all see, he took it ahead of schedule, against what seems to have been ahistorically stiffer opposition!

[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.

[Queeg]

These are all interesting comments, and I really don't have much of a disagreement on the various historical points that have been made. And this type of discussion is one that always follows close on the heels of any new game - and, frankly, the better the game, usually the more lively the discussion.

My concern, here and with other games, is this: Computer logic tends to be linear - the biggest number tends to win. Couple that with 20/20 hindsight and the bloodless detachment that comes from playing a game, and you end up with a near-impenetrable force field of certainty that distorts historical reality.

History never follows in lock-step with the numbers and offers no reset button. Indeed - and this is the source of my acknowledged Southern bias - what makes the ACW so universally appealing is that it so wonderfully didn't play out by the numbers. If it had, I sincerely doubt that anyone would be making a game about it today. Not many Shay's Rebellion blockbusters out there, after all.

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'm sure that Lincoln would have dearly loved to have the sense of certainty that simple reliance on the numbers would have afforded. Then again, had it played out strictly by the numbers in real life, we wouldn't still be writing books about him.

[Mike Scholl]

"My concern, here and with other games, is this: Computer logic tends to be linear - the biggest number tends to win. Couple that with 20/20 hindsight and the bloodless detachment that comes from playing a game, and you end up with a near-impenetrable force field of certainty that distorts historical reality."


This is why the designers included such factors as "troop quality" and "Leadership" and "suprise" and such in the equasion. But even now such "miracles" as Chancellorsville should not be pre-ordained---just look at all the oddities that had to take place in the right order for Lee's 60-odd thousand to "beat" Hooker's 130+ thousand. Even then, most Northern officers and men felt that it was Hooker who'd been beat.., not them. The system needs to guarantee the "possibility" of a Chancellorsville..., but not it's certainty.