Matrix Games Forums

I certainly have no objection to the idea of a prestige rating. It's clearly an identifiable attribute of military leaders in any historical period, and as such perhaps deserves to be represented, though I'm not sure exactly what its effects should be in the game.

My proposal #3 was to hide the real names of each general until he's fought a couple of battles. Thus, the generals are not really anonymous: just in temporary disguise. If you don't like that idea, you're very welcome to choose one of the other options.

It was rather naïve of me to suggest that my proposal would make everyone happy. In reality, if you get a bunch of people together, you can never get all of them to agree that the world is round, let alone which game options they prefer. In an ideal world, best to have as many options as possible, so that everyone can choose his own favourite. (But it all makes work for the programmer to do...)

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
…if you get a bunch of people together, you can never get all of them to agree that the world is round, let alone which game options they prefer.

…very true!

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
In an ideal world, best to have as many options as possible, so that everyone can choose his own favourite. (But it all makes work for the programmer to do...)

As the player [Lincoln or Davis] in this game would it not be interesting if the programming technology had the know how to incorporate war plans or “recommendations” from your generals [based on their historical ratings or personalities] for your approval [like in the real world] to advise you, upon your request, or to hear from them following a bad decision you make? They would be there advising you throughout the entire battle, war and/or campaign. In the future, I think such interactions will likely be a possible reality in strategy games.

ORIGINAL: dh76513
As the player [Lincoln or Davis] in this game would it not be interesting if the programming technology had the know how to incorporate war plans or “recommendations” from your generals [based on their historical ratings or personalities] for your approval [like in the real world] to advise you, upon your request, or to hear from them following a bad decision you make? They would be there advising you throughout the entire battle, war and/or campaign. In the future, I think such interactions will likely be a possible reality in strategy games.

Yes, I suppose this is quite likely. I think that some chess programs already include this kind of advice. The difference is that these chess programs are better players than most humans and are therefore well qualified to give advice. At some time in the future, perhaps programs will also be better wargame players than most humans.

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
At some time in the future, perhaps programs will also be better wargame players than most humans.

It's statements like this that will eventually provoke an absolutely fascinating math-heavy exposition by Eric regarding the limitations of AI when it comes to war games. (He previously posted it somewhere on the COG forum.)

I would like to think that things balance out.
 
The South should have better generals. Simply to offset the large material advantage the North has.

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I would like to think that things balance out.

The South should have better generals. Simply to offset the large material advantage the North has.

Yes, plus there are more 100-percenters (15 vs. 10) and 25-percenters (13 vs. 10), which ensures that the South always gets more good generals. Definitely helps game balance.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
At some time in the future, perhaps programs will also be better wargame players than most humans.

It's statements like this that will eventually provoke an absolutely fascinating math-heavy exposition by Eric regarding the limitations of AI when it comes to war games. (He previously posted it somewhere on the COG forum.)

I've been a programmer myself in the past, in a small way, and I understand something of the difficulties. In fact I'm impressed by how well game programs manage to play these days.

However, some people believe that computers will become more intelligent than people in time. In that case, I suppose it won't be necessary to program them in the same low-level way. Just show your computer the task and say, "Get on with it."

I can imagine intermediate stages in which programming gradually becomes a higher-level activity than it is now. Perhaps people will create general-purpose learning functions, so that you still have to define the task, but then you just call the learning function, which figures out for itself how to perform the task in the most efficient way.

This may seem like black magic, but we've already experienced relatively fast progress in the computer world. The first Fortran compiler was delivered in 1957, when I was three years old; before that, there were only machine and assembly languages.

Do the British or French forces if they appear get Generals or will they be so outclassed that a single Union Corps could take them ?
 
i.e. is playing the European politics actually more grief than its worth for the South as all it does is give the north some free provinces.

I have not seen any Generals with the English, but it is not a good thing for the Union if the English join the war

the Union fleet is a thing of the past, total control of the sea is history, the Union may win a sea battle or two, but they can not control the seas any longer

and there is not normally too much in Union Troops in the North, so to counter any threat from the north, means weaking the south, a no win either way

plus which way do the English decide to come in from the North, it is not a good thing to have happen

the Union will and should do all that it can, to stop it from ever happening

I do not think a decently led AI Union Div can stop any advance from the North, it would take at least a Corps or larger