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.
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!
You are either forgetting or ignoring blockade runners. From Battle Cry of Freedom on blockade runners:
"They shipped out half a million bales of cotton and brought in a million pairs of shoes, half a million rifles, a thousand tons of gunpowder, several hundred cannon, and so on."
That sounds like quite a bit of trade to me.
It was only a faction of what it would've been without the blockade
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Didn't Farragut have his Flagship sunk under him? I know at least one main naval Combatant ( as I recall) went down due to "Torpedoes".
According to Wikipedia: Farragut's flagship, the USS Hartford, ran aground at one point and was set on fire by a burning barge, but managed to recover.
New Orleans itself was undefended, but getting past the forts and the various obstacles doesn't seem to have been easy. It was a major operation.
Eric I have used the power setting quite frequently and the problem is that it effects any new buildings as well. For example If I build a new RR station I only get 3RR pts, or 2 research pts out of a research facility. I am currently trying to mod a scenario that starts the south out with very little but lets me build to a known quantity. But I agree with mike why not make the start point historically and let the power settings be for players who dont care for the historical scenarios.
This would have been great. Have one "This is the Real American Civil War" scenario for the Historically inclined..., and another titled "The South Shall Rise Again" with a more "fantasized" and "equalized" base for the "Balanced Game" fans. With both having "adjustments" available, everyone could find something they liked.
Eric I have used the power setting quite frequently and the problem is that it effects any new buildings as well. For example If I build a new RR station I only get 3RR pts, or 2 research pts out of a research facility. I am currently trying to mod a scenario that starts the south out with very little but lets me build to a known quantity. But I agree with mike why not make the start point historically and let the power settings be for players who dont care for the historical scenarios.
I haven't seen that effect from the Power settings. The Power settings, as I understand it, just affect resource production for each side. Do you mean the Difficulty settings?
The Power settings seem to me to provide quite a shift in income. I recently started a game at +3 for the Union and -3 for the Confederacy (First Sergeant level, which provides no other bonuses). The starting incomes for each side were:
Do the advantage settings affect combat? I'd like to affect the economies but not make it like the difficulty in Rome Total War where peasants can beat up Roman Legionaires on the highest level.
I did a first test tonight based on the suggested parameters to see how it would go and to give myself some practice. Spring ends when Summer starts on June 21st, so I gave myself until Early June 1862. This was played with the Beta update we're currently testing, which I won't go into much detail on and also used an updated July 1861 scenario which will be included in that update.
First, I would add "Faster Sieges" to those parameters I suggested as a good way to keep on the historical timeline. I was able to get close and I think on a replay I'll be right on the money, but this option would have made it easier on a first try.
I focused on Mustering and careful Impressment to build up my troops and economy. I built few camps, relying on new brigades to fill out the ranks. My ending strengths included various losses to disease, battle, marching, supply attrition, etc. It's probably fair to assume that I raised between 40%-50% more troops than are currently in the field, particularly since the time from early February to early June was very busy in terms of battles and sieges.
Here's where I stand at the end of the Early June, 1862 turn:
In the Northeast region, near Washington:
Rosencrans leads the US 1st Army with 3 Corps and 6 Divisions, totalling 56k troops
- Also includes 1 Artillery brigade with 10 pdr Parrots and several units with the Artillery attribute
Meade leads the US 2nd Army with 1 Corps and 3 Divisions, totalling 37k troops
- Includes 2 Artillery brigades with 10 pdr Parrots
4 Divisions under Hancock, Sedgwick and Buell in Harrisburg, totalling 55k troops
In the fortifications for Maryland and the Potomac: 43k troops
All infantry brigades had at least muskets. The majority had Minies, Springfields or Improved Springfields
Total troops in the Northeast: 148k mobile troops + 43k garrison troops = 191k Total
In my test game, unfortunately Kentucky went with the CSA. This caused me a number of problems in meeting the goals and timelines. I decided to assume that attacking Kentucky would be the equivalent of the planned march on Tennessee from Kentucky had it gone for me. The loss of Horses also was a reason for my lack of emphasis on Camps. In addition to that, it took a few months for me to smack my head and realize I'd mistakenly set some cities that produced far more Horses to produce Iron instead and was handicapping my economy as a result.
So, in the Kentucky Region, I besieged and took Louisville. I'll sub this for Fort Henry (which I would have beseiged had Kentucky gone for the Union). I went on to besiege Frankfort and Lexington with Frankfort likely to fall in 2-3 more turns.
US 2nd Corps (Reynolds) besieging Frankfort with 32k Troops, including several units with artillery and engineer attributes
19th Division (Fremont) with 12k besieging Lexington
1 brigade (1k) garrisoned in Louisville
Total troops in Kentucky Region: 45k
The West:
I took Missouri entirely and advanced into Arkansas. I besieged and took Memphis and have begun to advance down the river, but had to pause in both cases for resupply and securing supply lines.
US 1st Corps (Pope) with 28k, including 1 Siege Artillery unit with 13lb Mortars and 1 Cavalry Brigade in the Tenn-Miss river region, guarding Memphis
1 Brigade (1k) garrisoned in Memphis
8th Division (Lyon) with 14k in Ozarks, Arkansas
Total troops in the West: 43k
Recall my note above about losses. I probably hit my peak strength in Jan/Feb 1862 and it's been a steady decline since, though the initial wave of new musters for 1862 started to alleviate that. Pope's Corps, for example was up to nearly 45k when I sent it in, as was Reynolds' Corps in Kentucky. The upshot is that I had over 100k troops engaged in the Kentucky - Mississippi area when the Spring campaign started.
New Orleans:
Although I would never do this myself (because the AI is never dumb enough to not garrison NO and its forts), I tried it for the purposes of the test. I created a Corps under Butler with a full 45k men and shipped it from NY harbor to NO. Here's where I hit some trouble, likely due to the fact that my skill at amphibious attacks in FoF is very low (i.e. I last tried one months ago). The journey took longer than expected, my supply level for the Corps was set too low. As a result, they took attrition losses en route and more after landing. They are now down to three divisions with a total 15k effectives. They have New Orleans' Ft. St. Phillip besieged, and it looks like they'll take it given more time. However, the AI already counter-attacked with a division and while my Corps held, we exchanged some losses that they can ill afford.
In other words, the invasion of New Orleanse is a big screw-up, as it might have been historically if the CSA had a reasonable garrison there and the Union hadn't had a good naval commander. However, I did prove that I could ship 45k (poorly led) additional troops down to NO in the timeline provided, while doing those other tasks. If it had been up to me, I would have used them to bolster my forces near Washington to allow a more effective attack into Virginia as part of my Spring campaign, or sent them to Kentucky to speed the campaign there, instead of shipping them across the map.
In the end result, I would guess that I raised an army of about 500k for Spring 1862 of which I then lost about 150k through various causes.
Now, let's talk Navy:
I embarked on a naval expansion program in addition to all my land unit recruitment.
Two fleets are in the New Orleans area. One is blockading NO, with 2x 10 Ships and 5x 10 Frigates (this is the fleet that brought Butler's Corps to NO from NY). The other is blockading Mobile River with 1x 10 Ships and 1 x 10 Frigates.
One fleet is in the Virginian Atlantic with 3x 10 Ships and 1x 10 Frigates, blockading Norfolk
One fleet is in the Mid-Atlantic with 2x 10 Ships and 2x 10 Frigates, blockading Wilmington
One fleet is in the Carolinian Atlantic with 2x 10 Ships and 1x 10 Frigates, blockading the Savannah River.
This totals to Five Fleets, 10 x 10 Ships (100 Ships), 10 x 10 Frigates (100 Frigates)
I have three more Ships (x10) in production at the moment.
Edited to add: About half my Ships are upgraded to Dahlgrens, also all of my front-line forts are upgraded to decent weaponry with several also having upgraded attributes
Ok, that's my report from my first test as a player of likely average skill, with the settings I recommended. I'm pretty confident that with the addition of Faster Sieges and a little more practice on my part, I can do significantly better. Getting Kentucky to join the Union instead of the CSA in my next test would also be a big help!
ORIGINAL: Icelandair
Do the advantage settings affect combat? I'd like to affect the economies but not make it like the difficulty in Rome Total War where peasants can beat up Roman Legionaires on the highest level.
It may sound like a lot, but in reality it is minor compared to the amount of trade the South was engaging in prior to the war.
And the cost was exhorbinant. The risks associated (and the low supply and high demand) meant that the South paid dearly for those supplies - far, far above the cost they would have paid absent a blockade.
Erik I checked again tonight and you are mistaken. When I give myself a -1 power my research is affected by a considerable amount. I wish you were right though.
Is the AI more agressive on the higher diff levels? It sure seems so to me.
ERIC.... Those numbers aren't too far off overall. What were the exact settings you were using on the "new scenario" you were using? Any "pluses" and/or "minuses"? And what was on/off besides "Faster Sieges" being off? Anything especially different about the "new scenario" besides somewhat lower costs for Naval Units?
If it takes "faster sieges" to recreate what actually happened in history, why isn't that listed as a "normal siege," and then an option provided for "slower sieges"?
If one has to radically change the "default" settings to recreate history, then something is wrong. The default settings should be what recreates the actual imbalance of power, and the victory conditions should be based realistically on that lopsided balance of power. Then, the game could offer the alternatives for a "balanced" game, with victory conditions altered accordingly.
If victory matters (such as on theblitz.org website), who would start a PBEM game as the CSA with such radically altered conditions just so that they could recreate the actual war (keeping in mind that the victory conditions are not based on the radically altered settings)? And it is my opinion that many, if not most, players would prefer to play a game that is historically realistic.
Lots of wargames produced in the boardgame era reflected campaigns with a major imbalance of power or quality. These games weren't altered by giving the weaker side lots of abilities, units or economic options that they didn't have historically. Rather, the victory conditions were altered to reflect the real situation, and mostly based on the player doing better than each side did historically.
Can you imagine a game on the 1941 Barbarossa campaign where the default scenario gives Russians stronger units or enhanced powers so that they could stop the German invasion on the border and even invade Rumania? One could argue that it's based on WWII, but is it really? That's what happens when a game alters the forces or economic options rather than the victory conditions. Unfortunately, that's what appears to have happened with FoF in my opinion, and that's why some are challenging the game's "default" scenarios and options.
"Military operations are drastically affected by many considerations, one of the most important of which is the geography of the area" Dwight D. Eisenhower
Fair enough. It seems with luck and planning New Orleans CAN fall at approximately the right time. That's good. It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time. Not so good. But it helps to define the problem, and what might be needed to correct it overall..., which is progress.
and again, Why ? I have done all 3 of the things asked, and none of them used the same troops, it is not like the troops used to take NO would of been the troops used to take Nashville ?
(I am glad no one is asking when I took out the ANV)
[/quote]
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."
[/quote]
Mike
I posted before, that I had done the 1st two targets in a game already, that I did not go after NO as I was moving on the ANV instead, the statement then was, well since you couldn't take NO, the Union can not do what it did, so I went in to see if I could take NO in the time line asked, and I did
and I had also done the 1st two tagets with in the timeline in another game
there were 3 targets and 3 deadlines, all 3 have been matched and I am not a Union player, I do not know the strengths and weakness of commanding them
but with in reason, if the Union player wanted to follow history, they could, I tend to work for battles instead, I do not care about land
I try to set up and force the battle that I want to fight and then I fight it
(now the first two targets, you may be correct in saying I may of had a edge since I was using HW during my battles to get there)
If one has to radically change the "default" settings to recreate history, then something is wrong. ...
Why, just because you would have done it differently? The designers have said they intentionally made the default campaign more playable at the expense of some history. Nothing "wrong" with that at all since it's their game to design how they choose. They have also said they are coming out with a more historical scenario, perhaps as part of the next patch.
Edited for clarity.
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
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.
got to disagree with your point, the statments being made, was the Union player couldn't do it
doing it against a Human means nothing, because then the statements would be, well, if you were able to do that against him, he must be dumb and not much of a player
you guys are setting up a no win, because you can always say something wasn't any good in the test
I would like to second Jonathan's note: thank you.
I do not believe there is a person posting on these boards that demands historical perfection. I certainly do not. However, what you describe above is so much more in the ballpark that I look forward to trying the game again.
Like to add my thanks as well. Hopefully there will be an "historical" scenario in the game as well one of these days. And again, when you get a moment, could you give us the exact settings you were using in yout "test"?
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
got to disagree with your point, the statments being made, was the Union player couldn't do it
doing it against a Human means nothing, because then the statements would be, well, if you were able to do that against him, he must be dumb and not much of a player
you guys are setting up a no win, because you can always say something wasn't any good in the test
Come now, why would we set up a "now win"?
It's not like I have some interest in the game not meeting what I want it to be. If I had some kind of vendetta, or didn't like the game, I simply would not play, and would not post, and you wouldn't even know I exist.
Tests of what can be done against an AI are uninteresting to me. I am pretty sure I can take any side in any strategy game ever made, and within a matter of a day or two figure out how it works and beat any AI you care to put in front of me, barring grossly unfair advantages. Coding an AI to give a credible opponent for a game like this is nearly impossible.
A better test, to see what is reasonable, is actually to just play honestly against yourself.
I'm going to run another test, likely tonight. I think it's probably not necessary to reduce the CSA in power as much as I did, but the settings I used definitely gave the Union a stronger economy.
I'll list the exact settings I used, with some comments based on that first test:
Ok, start with the Advanced Game Settings, then change the following:
Union Power +3 (this boosts the Union Economy significantly)
Confederate Power -3 (this reduces the Confederate economy significantly. In my next run, I'm going to try setting this to -1 as I think boosting the Union Power was the most important part here. The South seemed a bit too weak in my test, so -3 was probably going too far)
Population Modifiers OFF (This still limits your recruitment by available manpower, but it doesn't reduce the economy relativ to how much of the available manpower you've used up. Since the focus was to boost the North's economy as well as the strength of its forces, this option needs to be OFF.)
Richer Economy ON (I wanted to see the North at its economic peak with the provided game options, so this needs to be on)
European Diplomacy OFF (Historically, European Diplomacy didn't amount to any kind of intervention, so turning this off makes that a guarantee and also frees up money for both sides that can be spent on the rest of their needs, while limiting the South's ability to boost its economy through foreign trade)
CSA Emancipation OFF (Didn't happen, so it won't be possible here.)
Randomized Stats OFF (I wanted to make sure I had the historical generals so that leadership changes wouldn't skew the results)
Hidden Stats OFF (The new update makes it more difficult to demote bad generals to make way for good ones, so I had no problem leaving the stats entirely visible. If I hadn't been focused on getting the historical results as perfect as I could, I woudl have turned Randomized and Hidden on, as it's the way I prefer to play for fun and to recreate Lincoln's difficulty finding great generals.)
More Generals ON (I just like more generals and it also make sure I get a lot more of the historical ones to spread around to the extra slots in the upcoming update)
For speed, I fought every battle as a Quick Battle, so I didn't change any battle settings. My normal preference there is to turn Near Start ON, but I didn't touch that this time.
Also, for my next test I'll be turning Faster Sieges ON. I don't think it's necessary if you really play well. I think if I'd made fewer mistakes I still could have been on a better pace with Faster Sieges OFF, but with it ON although sieges will be more painful, they'll take less time. I think this one's definitely a subjective thing and I'll try it ON and see how I like it.
As far as my economic policies, I followed these rules of thumb:
When Muster chance in a city is over 50%, always try to Muster there. Keep Mustering every single turn you can, while manpower and governors allow.
When Impressment danger is 10%, Impress! - I used this particularly for Horses early on and continued for both Horses and Labor once Kentucky joined the CSA. I occasionally Impressed when the danger was 20%, if the amount gained was going to be high (i.e. 30-40 resources).
Don't over-supply your troops, it's costly. Also, spread them out when you're not fighting to avoid terrible disease losses. Ideally, garrison them in provinces with cities that have hospitals, if possible.
I focused on building up my research early, did not focus on camps (just mustering) and set a goal for weaponry to get every new unit Muskets and then gradually improve them as my resources allowed. Once my Research started coming in, I focused on choices that would help me purchase units less expensively, like War Department, Cavalry Department, etc.
I looked at my cities and found which ones already had an advantage in unit production. For example, Boston is quite nice for building ships, Harrisburg for building just about any land unit, etc. I then build further improvements to emphasize those advantages. Although Manufacturing Centers are expensive, they are worthwhile in the long run. By mustering most of my troops, I was able to then focus my cities on producing artillery, siege artillery, cavalry, ships, frigates and containers.
Built a bunch of extra Divisions and Corps to reorganize my army and give me containers to put all the newly mustered troops in. The AOP starts in the July 1861 scenario I was playing with some understrength divisions, so I consolidated and moved the extra division containers West to reorganize the loose brigades there.
All of this let me build up to a fairly large army that could handle multiple fronts at once as well as an amphibious op while expanding the naval blockade.
