From the creators of Crown of Glory come an epic tale of North Vs. South. By combining area movement on the grand scale with optional hex based tactical battles when they occur, Forge of Freedom provides something for every strategy gamer. Control economic development, political development with governers and foreign nations, and use your military to win the bloodiest war in US history.
Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources
Actually, this is not the case. New Orleans led eventually to all of Louisana, and the invasion attempt into Texas (Red River Campaign), and to the capture of Port Hudson on the Mississippi. Take a good look at a map of the South in 1864 and you will see very large areas of the Coast and a good deal inland have been taken from the sea.
This was actually a hotly debated topic during beta testing, so it's good to see the issue getting discussed here as well.
The big fear was that to allow control conversion from sea would make the southern coastline too vulnerable, and permit a "Normandy" style invasion with the AoP, and ahistorical penetration into the Southern hinterlands. Because once a province is converted, it's eligible to provide Land and even Rail/River supply where applicable.
Did the Union take huge swaths of the South via coastal invasion by 1864? Ehhhh...well, thats a tricky question to answer because it's rather subjective, but here is the West Point map of the war, 1864, you be the judge:
This map is actually somewhat incomplete; there were some tiny Union enclaves around Ft. Pickens, Charleston, and Jacksonville as well that this map does not bother even showing.
I am the first one that will raise his hand for historical accuracy in this game but... This is a game [:D] and not all players are historical freaks like some of us here [:D]. This is why Matrix team made both sides equal.
I would like to see some options that will be more historicaly accurate but I suggest that you leave the old ones as well for all those players wanting a good and fun war game.
Even if you don't change anything, I am sure that I will play this game for years. [&o]
"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."
Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources
Actually, this is not the case. New Orleans led eventually to all of Louisana, and the invasion attempt into Texas (Red River Campaign), and to the capture of Port Hudson on the Mississippi. Take a good look at a map of the South in 1864 and you will see very large areas of the Coast and a good deal inland have been taken from the sea.
This was actually a hotly debated topic during beta testing, so it's good to see the issue getting discussed here as well.
The big fear was that to allow control conversion from sea would make the southern coastline too vulnerable, and permit a "Normandy" style invasion with the AoP, and ahistorical penetration into the Southern hinterlands. Because once a province is converted, it's eligible to provide Land and even Rail/River supply where applicable.
Did the Union take huge swaths of the South via coastal invasion by 1864? Ehhhh...well, thats a tricky question to answer because it's rather subjective, but here is the West Point map of the war, 1864, you be the judge:
This map is actually somewhat incomplete; there were some tiny Union enclaves around Ft. Pickens, Charleston, and Jacksonville as well that this map does not bother even showing.
That's not a very accurate map. THe union held more of the North Carolina coast as well as parts of the South Carolina coast as well as a big chunk of northern Florida.
Yeah; Shelby Foote's "The Civil War, Vol 3" has a much better map showing those coastal holdings, on pg 2...if I had a link to that I woulda posted it instead....
The map on pg 2 of volumn 2 is interesting too; it shows the Union holdings in 1863, and you get a good look at the New Orleans holdings before Vicksburg and the entire Mississippi fell, causing a link up. As you can see (for those of you with a copy handy)....ehhhhh, well I would not call it small, but...I'm not sure I'd necessarily call it large...or more imporantly, pushing far inland. Hmmm...ehhhh...hmmm... Like I said, you'll all have to judge for yourself.
I think we have to tweak - not find the exact number - or the historical justified number ...
If the "historical justified number" can be found, why not use it?
Why do you think that using wrong numbers will make it a better game? Surely it's much the same as a game whether you get the numbers right or wrong; so you may as well get them right.
I think we have to tweak - not find the exact number - or the historical justified number ...
If the "historical justified number" can be found, why not use it? Why do you think that using wrong numbers will make it a better game? Surely it's much the same as a game whether you get the numbers right or wrong; so you may as well get them right.
Jonathan. This "bone" has been "in contention" since day one. Some of us (you and I, for example) feel that a simulation on an historical subject isn't worthwhile unless it does it's level best to actually model the historical situation. Others (spruce among them) want a "game" that puts "balance" at the top of the list, and will ignore "reality" in favor of "fun". The best suggestion recently has come from Eric, who is proposing that both "sides" get their way.
What he's proposed is that they will leave the current "flights of fancy" scenarios in the game for the "balance" faction..., but add some that actually have something to do with the ACW for the rest of us. I think it's an elegant solution, as both "sides" can ignore the other's scenarios and do what they like to do. Keep your spirits up..., and wait for the next patch or two. Too bad they didn't think of this earlier...
Yap, that is the best way. I would like to see historical scenario but also would like to have an option to play more balanced game.
"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."
...The big fear was that to allow control conversion from sea would make the southern coastline too vulnerable, and permit a "Normandy" style invasion with the AoP, and ahistorical penetration into the Southern hinterlands. Because once a province is converted, it's eligible to provide Land and even Rail/River supply where applicable...
Didn't the Union land a large army on the Virginia capes by sea? Wasn't there a whole amphibious landing of an Army sized unit?
For Pete's sake, the southern coastline WAS vulnerable.
The only thing that prevented "ahistorical penetration" was supply, and a deliberate decision on the part of the Union to only occupy enclaves.
I suspect that the biggest "brake" on Union sea invasions was the Union "sea supply" capacity. In other words, the Union may not have had the ships and/or organisation to supply vast numbers of brigades soley by sea. Remember, refrigeration hasn't come about yet, so if the cumbersome quarter master department spends too much time trying to organise itself, perishables spend too much time sitting in a wharehouse, and they will never do anybody any good...
(Sorry, I can't provide a cite. This is only what my "gut" tells me.)
This could be simulated either "x" number of supply points can be supplied via a sea route, based on year/date, naval tecnologies, and/or number of ships the Union possess in game...
I suspect that the biggest "brake" on Union sea invasions was the Union "sea supply" capacity. In other words, the Union may not have had the ships and/or organisation to supply vast numbers of brigades soley by sea. Remember, refrigeration hasn't come about yet, so if the cumbersome quarter master department spends too much time trying to organise itself, perishables spend too much time sitting in a wharehouse, and they will never do anybody any good...
(Sorry, I can't provide a cite. This is only what my "gut" tells me.)
This could be simulated either "x" number of supply points can be supplied via a sea route, based on year/date, naval tecnologies, and/or number of ships the Union possess in game...
Actually, the biggest "brake" was garrisoning. Even "conquered", the locals (excepting freed slaves) weren't friendly. Couple this with the South's inherently lousy system of communications and going very far inland was a lot of trouble unless you could follow a navagable river. And "navagable rivers" were where the Rebel defensive works were cited. Most "coastal operations" were to provide a "base camp" for operations against the Ports and Forts. Not sure how to reflect this in the game..., but once the Ports and Forts fell (as in New Orleans) control of the coastal region was achieved and further moves inland could be mounted.
Yeah, thats actually one of the ideas I threw out there during playtesting...allow a non-adjacent province to be control-converted if it contains a major port city.
I agree with Mike and JW on the province control. I still do not like the invasion force surrendering after an invasion if it is defeated in a land battle.
come on guys - don't put me in a box where I don't belong. [:'(]
I just want to say that we are dealing with a game - and not some historical simulation. And I'm not planning to debate details ... the game should be fun to play - and neither do I like the fact that CSA can steamroll the Union ... but that's up to the game dev's to tweak. Losing a hardfought war isn't boring at all.
I think we have to find imbalancing parameters and discuss them and less talking about historical accuracy.
come on guys - don't put me in a box where I don't belong. [:'(]
I just want to say that we are dealing with a game - and not some historical simulation. And I'm not planning to debate details ... the game should be fun to play - and neither do I like the fact that CSA can steamroll the Union ... but that's up to the game dev's to tweak. Losing a hardfought war isn't boring at all.
I think we have to find imbalancing parameters and discuss them and less talking about historical accuracy.
And we disagree. It is supposed to be about a historical war, one that the designers researched. You are falling into that trap where your assuming it cant be both. I suggest the game can be both.
Furthermore you are telling those of us that want a historical situation to stop making suggestion cause only balance matters. That would be your opinion and it obviously isnt shared by everyone.
come on guys - don't put me in a box where I don't belong. [:'(]
I just want to say that we are dealing with a game - and not some historical simulation. And I'm not planning to debate details ... the game should be fun to play - and neither do I like the fact that CSA can steamroll the Union ... but that's up to the game dev's to tweak. Losing a hardfought war isn't boring at all.
I think we have to find imbalancing parameters and discuss them and less talking about historical accuracy.
And we disagree. It is supposed to be about a historical war, one that the designers researched. You are falling into that trap where your assuming it cant be both. I suggest the game can be both.
Furthermore you are telling those of us that want a historical situation to stop making suggestion cause only balance matters. That would be your opinion and it obviously isnt shared by everyone.
well that's just your opinion on me - and that's not what I said. I think you are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't spoke.
there's no need to turn up the heat in these forums and start some senseless polarisation. I'm also in favour of more historical correctness - but the game comes at the first place. And if there are imbalancing stuff - they should be discussed ...
I'm also in favour of more historical correctness - but the game comes at the first place. And if there are imbalancing stuff - they should be discussed ...
Maybe we should let SPRUCE off the hook. He's still got it backwards (FIRST you make it as historically accurate as possible...; THEN you add "bonus toggles" and "adjustment levels" so players can balance the scenarios themselves to meet their own needs and fancies), but at least he's reccognizing that other points-of-view might be relevent and acceptable. I appologise if I "pigeonholed" you unfairly
As I see it the Union conducted seaborn invasions for three different purposes:
1) to take and hold bases for the blockading fleet (Port Royal)
2) to close ports as part of the blockade (North Carolina sounds, Fort Pulaski off Savannah, failed attacks on Charleston)
3) as a launching point for offensives (Pamunkey River/Petersburg operation, New Orleans)
Some were conceived as one and converted into another purpose (Wilmington as an example). One often talked-about but never attempted operation was moving inland from the North Carolina sounds to cut the Weldon railroad. It wasn't done early on because the demand for troops was higher for other operations.
In the game the North cannot rapidly build up a blockading fleet and doesn't need bases for the blockaders anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). Cutting railroads has no effect on supply, right? And closing ports doesn't affect blockade-running, only destroying the actual runners helps. So the only reason for the North to launch a seaborn invasion is for a major strategic offensive, which it can't do because it can't control the territory it takes unless the occupied territory borders other Union-controlled areas.
So there's no clear reason I can see to conduct amphib ops.
Steam-powered ships used a lot of coal even when idle, especially the fast ones that were best suited to a blockade squadron. These steam warships were as dependent on coal supply as the land armies were dependent on food and forage. If you abstract this and assume naval supply is handled by the staff officers, you still need to account for the rapid buildup of the USN from ninety ships to about two hundred and fifty by the end of 1862. Is it possible in the game to construct this fleet while also building the historic troop levels?
“The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." - James Branch Cabell
...it will be quite easy to make changes related to game-balance that do not require additional programming. So, we would very much like to know your suggestions for such changes.
...
Most people discussing allowing the North to control provinces via sea invasion, and many of the other suggestions posted here, seem to have forgotten the point of this thread as quoted from Gil R above (his italics) in the original post. Most of the requests belong in the Wish List thread, not here.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
Hello everyone,
I have updated my computer power and am about to buy this game. It sounds OK and seems that bugs and other issues concerning balancing are being addressed by the devs. Also seems there is great dev support for this game and that is great.
One thing about the blockade and runners is that much raw material and 'luxury' resources were shipped, and so much space was being used on the runners for 'luxury items' in detriment to essential war resources and weapons and gunpowder, that the Confederate Government passed laws that were enforced requiring runners to automatically consign a certain large percentage of their storage space for essential war goods. I think this may have been nearly 50% of available storage space at a latter date in the war, and was around 25% when first enacted in 1863 or 1864 or so, the specifics can be found by searching for and reading the info. in many books and articles. It would not be necessary to be too specific if something like thais is patched into the game. The war resources, not weapons and gunpowder, that were shipped in would include: cloth, leather, chemicals and particularily nitre for making gunpowder and mercury compound for percussion caps, medical supplies, copper and brass, lead for bullets, etc.
The South exported sugar, molasses, and turpentine in additon to cotton. Also, some of these resources were imported into the South, it just depended on what area of the South runners were travelling to and from. just an added tidbit of info. to think about in overall terms for the blockade and runners.
It seems that the main issue is that the South is getting European resources and weapons directly without comming through the blockade, which is historically and realistically impossible, unless someone had a teleporter tucked away somewhere. Perhaps a random percentage of the actual European resources and armaments should only be allowed to get through the South, and something like this would avoid diddling with and changing the runners and their stats themselves. A simple percentage such as European resources etc. making it throught the blockade to the South for 1861 = 80 - 90%, 1862 = 65 - 79%, 1863 = 50 - 64%, 1864 = 30 - 49%, 1865 = 20 - 29%. Something simple like that.
Remember, many runners that were captured were small sailing brigs, brigantines, and sloops, and many sailed from Mexico and Central America as well as Cuba, the Bahamas etc. A lot of supplies came overland from Mexico and much cotton was shipped to Mexico, but after the capture of Brownsville, Texas much of the supply from Mexico and Central America and Cuba was stopped, although a longer overland route to Mexico was then used and the entire Gulf Coast of the South was also never completely and succesfully blockaded against the very numerous smaller runners. So, 1,500 or so runners may have been captred by the north, but the vast majority were smaller runners. These smaller runners were very important.
All this would most likely be fairly simple to patch into the game by using a variable simple runner resource percentage rate as I suggest. Something like that.
I look forward to enjoying this good game, and i also enjoy the ideas and tips posted by all the people here.
Have a good Holiday Season, Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
