Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."

Alright, I'm by no means as good at FoF as Hard Sarge, but I'll undertake the challenge as long as I'm allowed to adjust the provided in-game settings to my preferences for a more historical but less balanced situation. I'll also be playing with the latest internal beta update which helps by significantly reducing the cost of building the Navy up for the Union.

Set me a few benchmarks and I'll see what I can do to achieve them, in parallel.

Regards,

- Erik

Raise a Navy, Army with artillery and Cavalry that approximates the size of the Combat units in the EAST and WEST. Also move on NO and down the Mississippi from the North. All this by August 1862.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


...It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time...

You are jumping to conclusions. Just becasue Hard Sarge didn't duplicate the historical situation in one try against the AI does not mean the system cannot do so. In order to try to prove your assertion that the system cannot you should play several PBEM games. Both of you must be willing to faithfully follow the historical course of the war. Even then, the luck of the dice will almost certainly throw you far off the historical track. And even if after several tries you didn't recreate the situation does not mean you cannot.

Another note, the limits set on how many of one type of weapon the North can have is ridiculous. Again it is DESIGNED to prevent any reasonable representation of what actually exsisted.
Even if one increases the Population and allows for larger troops strengths one quickly runs into having to pay HUGE sums of money and weapons to arm said troops. You cant honestly expect me to believe most of the Union army was armed with blunderbusses can you?

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."

Alright, I'm by no means as good at FoF as Hard Sarge, but I'll undertake the challenge as long as I'm allowed to adjust the provided in-game settings to my preferences for a more historical but less balanced situation. I'll also be playing with the latest internal beta update which helps by significantly reducing the cost of building the Navy up for the Union.

Set me a few benchmarks and I'll see what I can do to achieve them, in parallel.

Regards,

- Erik

Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

Of course, that is much hard to test.

But the point I am making is that testing balance against the computer is kind of pointless - you are just testing your ability not to be an idiot. Anyone with some basic intelligence should be able to stomp the computer every time.

I have no doubt Sarge can do all kinds of amazing things. That doesn't tell us anything about the balance of the game.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Have you tried the various options provided to tailor the game to your liking? +3 Union Power, -3 Confederate Power and Richer Economies can allow the Union a lot more leeway as far as multiple parallel production and research paths.

Regards,

- Erik

I tried a game as the Union at +3 power and richer economy (the south was at -1 power). My goal was to outfit my entire starting army with Springfield’s or better and build a couple divisions of cavalry. I then wanted to give each division at least 1 artillery unit.

By late 1863 I had a grand total of 6 artillery units built and my army still had some improvised weapons in it and about half had only mini rifles. I also had only about 1 divisions worth of cavalry built by then. By this point I had also managed to only build 2 corps HQ’s as well.

Now I’m sure had I forgone things like diplomacy spending, economic growth and research I could have done better. But I was trying to play the game intelligently and simply could not afford to build an historical force. Not even close to the one fielded in mid 1862 by the Union and the game was more than half over.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Berkut

But the point I am making is that testing balance against the computer is kind of pointless...

Agreed but not because of your opinion that the AI is stupid. I neither expect nor want the AI to play a strictly historical game. It should have a lot of variability in it's strategic play to make the game replayable. So the likelihood of getting to a certain point in the game and being able to say "yup that is what really happened" should be unlikely.

If this is truly a test of wheter the game can simulate the war then it needs to be done with PBEM by two people who are cooperating to play a historical game. Any good player can skew the results if he knows exaclty what the other person is trying to accomplish and is actively working to prevent that.

OK, call me crazy here if you must, but shouldn't the "Neutral" settings be the ones that best recreate the historical economic situation for both sides?

If you're telling me I have to set the Union at +3 and the CSA at -3 to get the right "historical" feel, why is the game not automatically defaulted to that?

Thresh

hmm... I thought I've purchased a game (which btw I enjoy as it is) and not just a tool to feed the illusion of a perpetual history recreation

ORIGINAL: Thresh

OK, call me crazy here if you must, but shouldn't the "Neutral" settings be the ones that best recreate the historical economic situation for both sides?

If you're telling me I have to set the Union at +3 and the CSA at -3 to get the right "historical" feel, why is the game not automatically defaulted to that?

Thresh

It was a game design decision. The designers chose to build a balanced strategy game instead of an historical wargame. The Union had a 9-1 advantage in both money and industry over the south. They also had about a 4-1 advantage in manpower.

Had the designers approached the game with these basic facts as their building blocks, we’d have a more accurate wargame today since they’d have taken into account all the problems such a huge advantage creates in a game and designed things to make it challenging for both sides.

As it is, in my above post where I had tweaked the settings so high, I could have steamrolled the south anytime I wished since the game is designed to be a balanced test and any weight given to one side or the other simply skews game balance.

But I wanted to see if I could build an historical army so I refrained from crushing the south.

Jim

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.

I think the point that Jim is making, and one I agree with, is that the game doesn't seem well though out as far as making the balnce between various things work.

You can build/conscript infantry, but cavalry is too "expensive", artillery is too "expensive" and ships are too "expensive". The Union Navy efectively doubled in size in the first year of the war. How could one manage that in the current game?

This is not a question of game balance, per se. But a question of whether the game "matches up" with the time frame it is gaming. Right now, it does not. It would appear that the next patch will adress the naval issue at least. That is good to know.

one thing that is interesting to note is that the blockade was effective even without full coverage by the US Navy. Simply the threat of having your ship and goods siezed killed most international trade with the South, since most shippers were unwilling to risk their fortunes on such an endeavor...especially when there was plenty of money to be amde shipping goods to and from the North anyway!

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
It was a game design decision. The designers chose to build a balanced strategy game instead of an historical wargame.

The game designers decided to make the "default" settings such that they would approximate history while providing a balanced game. The game itself is full of historical research and historical decisions, as well as historical options that are in the player's control to adjust.

For example, the European Diplomacy option. There's nothing wrong with turning that off if you think it's too much of a drain on the economy as designed. Historically, there were possibilities, but it ended up being a sideshow and turning off the option make sure it ends up that way.

Behind the scenes, we're working based on feedback to address some issues players find ahistorical or at least bending history a bit too far. However, what confuses me is that most players don't seem to change the settings much and explore the variety of gameplay that can be achieved by that.

As it is, in my above post where I had tweaked the settings so high, I could have steamrolled the south anytime I wished since the game is designed to be a balanced test and any weight given to one side or the other simply skews game balance.

The question also becomes, what would a game vs. a Human look like? I believe that a Union player can come pretty darn close to doing what the Union did historically against the AI, even with the AI in some cases playing smarter than the Confederacy did. Against a human, with settings designed to skew against a balanced game and more towards a painfully realistic game, I still think a CSA opponent would not be that easily steamrollered. Keep in mind what the Union did manage to achieve in 1862 and 1863 and I think the results would be fairly close. Of course, there's only one way to find out...

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.

Artillery batteries were 6 guns and 155 men therefore a 3000 man brigade would average out to 116 guns. A few less once you factor in command staff at the battatlion and brigade level.

Currently it takes far too long to build a sizable army up to actual wartime levels due to the high cost of units. I'd say reduce costs by a factor of 10 at least and triple upkeep costs or something. By tripling the upkeep you limit the size of player’s armies in relation to what their economy can sustain.

As to regularbirds artillery argument, I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If artillery was causing casualties equal to what 300 pieces would have been expected to do then I'd say ok, but they do about as much damage as 12-20 guns would be expected to do so in my mind they represent 12-20 guns. Either tweak damage way up or reduce costs so players can outfit their divisions/corps/armies properly.

Jim

Ok, that sounds about right. With that agreed upon what was the largest amount of pieces brought together during a battle of the ACW. If memory serves me right it was at Gettysburg and it was in the ball park of 200 pieces. Which means that 2x arty brigades per army in this game would be about on the money, right? Just curious.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."

Alright, I'm by no means as good at FoF as Hard Sarge, but I'll undertake the challenge as long as I'm allowed to adjust the provided in-game settings to my preferences for a more historical but less balanced situation. I'll also be playing with the latest internal beta update which helps by significantly reducing the cost of building the Navy up for the Union. Set me a few benchmarks and I'll see what I can do to achieve them, in parallel.

This is from what I asked SARGE. "Spring of 1862 was a really busy time for the Union IRL. Farragut taking New Orleans (with Butler's occupation force following), Pope siezing the Mississippi Forts and Memphis, Grant and Foote opening up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers at Henry and Donaldson while Buell marched his army on Nashville through Kentucky. That's over 150,000 men involved in some active operation in the West. And in the East between Burnside on the Carolina Coast and Fremont in the Allegheny's, you also have Banks in the Valley, Wool at Fortress Monroe, and "Little Mac's" massive Army of the Potomac around Washington----over 200,000 men ready to go into "action". My question is "Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?"


"Have you tried the various options provided to tailor the game to your liking? +3 Union Power, -3 Confederate Power and Richer Economies can allow the Union a lot more leeway as far as multiple parallel production and research paths. "


To me this looks like an admission that the basic scenarios are "way out of whack"... Aren't you saying that to get an historically accurate start up Jim Burns was asking about, you have to "jack up the Union considerably" while "heavily handicapping" the South? Sure sounds that way...

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.

Well Pickett's charge lasted about 30 min to an hour and I'd say they lost much higher numbers than that to each Union artillery brigade firing at them. The union had on average 6 guns to a battery and 3-4 batteries to a brigade/regiment if my memory serves. That's a lot of lead flying at those troops as they crossed that field.

Jim

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.

Very uncommon.