Map philosophy

[Graycompany]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Graycompany
Whats more interesting then standing on a hill behind a picket fence with 500 enemy troops charging you?

The literal answer is "Almost anything." Waiting to receive a charge may be exciting, but it isn't really interesting. You have only a few decisions. Stand or run? Fire now or fire a bit later? Fire at whom? No, the latter's not really interesting: you fire at the guy coming straight at you, of course.

Actually the question isn't even relevant, because this isn't a role-playing game in which you take the part of an ordinary soldier. Not quite sure what you're getting at...

Well, that is the point. Being in charge and telling others what you want and where and when is great, I like that to, but the guy that is standing on the line, when to fire, when to stand, when to run ( shudders at running ) , not to put to fine a point on it, but that is how battles and wars are won and lost. That guy, who nobody knows up to that point, he does not care what your Iron production is, if the blockade runner got through, if there is enough money to start a new unit, that moment, that small moment, Fire, Stand, Run, the Ground he picked, the very moment, that is what is interesting. why? Why, that choice, and not some other, Why that hill, why that fence, why Fire and not charge.

It does not have to be a role playing game, how anyone could play a game where you work so hard to get to a point in a game, and just push a button to tell if you win or lose when you can play the acual battle and perhaps turn the tide with a small move by a unit on a hill behind a fence, to me that is why I play.

[Graycompany]

DISCLAIMER: I am a Marine and the views expressed by Marines do not reflect the general public, and as such should be taken with a head shake and a smile. Just ask Hard Sarge.[8|][:D]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Graycompany
It does not have to be a role playing game, how anyone could play a game where you work so hard to get to a point in a game, and just push a button to tell if you win or lose when you can play the acual battle and perhaps turn the tide with a small move by a unit on a hill behind a fence, to me that is why I play.

Thanks for the eloquent explanation. But I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you're the president or you're the grunt in the front line. No-one for many centuries has found himself playing both roles in reality.

True, a game could let you play both roles. But where's the sense in it? Lincoln or Davis may have wished that they could have affected the outcomes of battles more directly, but they couldn't, and if you want to simulate the war as it was then you should choose to play some defined role in that war: president, general, sergeant, private, or whatever. When you've chosen your role, the others should be barred to you, because no-one in reality combined different roles at the same time in the same war.

I choose to play president. I accept that battle results are out of my control. If you want to play battles, you shouldn't be making presidential decisions. Because no-one in reality did so.

[Hard Sarge]

Yea, but, this is a game and he can have it both ways, it is not reality

I mean in Maddon 07, my Browns are 7-0 this year (well, next year, they won all there games last year) I got a rookie WR with over 2000 yards and a RB with over 1200 yards rushings (not bad for 7 games)

so that is not reality either (man that team is a Fanasey, but it is fun)

[Graycompany]

I think that Gen Lee ( the man not the Car) did do alot of what will be available to do in this game. Making a far range of choices as to Supply, Units, strategy and even telling his Artillery Commanders where to set up. In fact an Army commander in this time frame covered by the game would do quite a bit of what this game entails. I can understand your point though, that you just want to make strategic and not tactical moves, and it looks like we will both have our options. Want to sign up now for a PBEM? [:D]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I played, and won, two games of Frank Hunter's ACW game by e-mail -- one with each side, against different opponents. I expect I'll want to play this one by e-mail too. But it would be sensible to practise a bit first.

[Graycompany]

Ok, Let me know. Which side you want?

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

On a related note, I was wondering if there is only one flavor of cavalry? Stuart's attached artillery was pretty light - would it be possible to assign heavier guns to specific cavalry units to create a kind of "medium" or "heavy" cav?

No, we don't have that. The description of horse artillery is: "25% of unit's attack is made with the range profile of a 6pdr gun. Unit has -4 movement penalty." One cannot upgrade the gun, since it is still a cavalry unit and therefore the only weapons that can be upgraded are Burnside Carbines, Musketoons, etc.

EDIT: I should add that if you purchase the horse artillery attribute AND the "quality horses" attribute (which gives a +6 movement bonus) then you might not have upgraded the gun, but you've got an artillery-laden cavalry unit that has a +2 movement bonus.

[genie144]

Gil - That bonus or lack of is for a standard cavalry unit correct?  So it would be -2 movement for cavalry, not compared to infantry?  Sorry if it seems a dumb question...  Just wanted to double check.
 
Sam

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: genie144

Gil - That bonus or lack of is for a standard cavalry unit correct? So it would be -2 movement for cavalry, not compared to infantry? Sorry if it seems a dumb question... Just wanted to double check.

Sam

Yes, cavalry and infantry have different base movements. I don't remember exactly what they are, but in open terrain I think cavalry can go around 20 hexes (maybe a few more), so +6 movement is represents about 30%.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

Ok, Let me know. Which side you want?

I'm not committing myself to play against anyone at this stage, before the game has even been released.

But in general I prefer to play as the CSA, for two reasons: (1) if you play as the underdog, it feels better when you win; (2) I believe in self-determination, which is what I think most Southerners were fighting for.

However, the USA has more resources, and it's more comfortable to play with more resources, so playing as the USA also has something to be said for it.

The slavery issue doesn't excite me. I'm against it, of course, but so is everyone else these days. It's become a non-issue. Whereas self-determination is still an issue in various parts of the world (including Spain, where I happen to live).

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Thanks for the eloquent explanation. But I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you're the president or you're the grunt in the front line. No-one for many centuries has found himself playing both roles in reality.

True, a game could let you play both roles. But where's the sense in it? Lincoln or Davis may have wished that they could have affected the outcomes of battles more directly, but they couldn't, and if you want to simulate the war as it was then you should choose to play some defined role in that war: president, general, sergeant, private, or whatever. When you've chosen your role, the others should be barred to you, because no-one in reality combined different roles at the same time in the same war.

In Graycompany's defense, yes I think you can have it both ways in a simulation game. I'm a long-time strategy gamer going back to the early days of SSI and to me, the game that can immerse me in the "realities" and personalities at the tactical level adds immeasurably to the drama and excitement of a game as opposed to one that simply requires me to move counters around on a hex grid and roll die to determine an outcome.

Put simpler, once I use my unequalled brilliance (*cough*) to bring the best guns & men to the battle, it's very gratifying to hear the fusilade of musketry and the rumble of cannon as they decide the outcome. I want to be both the man who changes the way history was played out AND the man who orders his men to hold the line against the enemy's onrush. That would be the best of all possible wargaming worlds.

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

I think that Gen Lee ( the man not the Car) did do alot of what will be available to do in this game. Making a far range of choices as to Supply, Units, strategy and even telling his Artillery Commanders where to set up.

I'll disagree to an extent - Lee was a masterful operational commander, but he left his subordinate commanders to make many of the detailed tactical decisions. It proved to be both his strength and his greatest weakness (especially after Jackson's death).

For example, it wasn't Lee who sited the artillery at Fredricksburg. It was Longstreet.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
In Graycompany's defense, yes I think you can have it both ways in a simulation game. I'm a long-time strategy gamer going back to the early days of SSI and to me, the game that can immerse me in the "realities" and personalities at the tactical level adds immeasurably to the drama and excitement of a game as opposed to one that simply requires me to move counters around on a hex grid and roll die to determine an outcome.

Put simpler, once I use my unequalled brilliance (*cough*) to bring the best guns & men to the battle, it's very gratifying to hear the fusilade of musketry and the rumble of cannon as they decide the outcome. I want to be both the man who changes the way history was played out AND the man who orders his men to hold the line against the enemy's onrush. That would be the best of all possible wargaming worlds.

Yes, this is something that game players seem to want, but it's cheating. Lincoln and Davis would have loved to direct the tactics as well as the strategy, but they couldn't and they didn't. If you insist on wearing multiple hats, you ought to face the fact that you're not really simulating anything real, you're just playing around in some kind of fantasy world.

I prefer to feel that I'm confronting the sort of challenges that real people confronted in the 19th century. Their battles were out of their direct control; so my battles should be out of my direct control too. No-one really controlled a 19th-century battle very much; it took its own course, influenced by the decisions of all the people who took part in it. From a game player's point of view, a die roll is a good way to represent it.

It's wishful thinking to imagine that you could have influenced it very much, had you been there.

It's true that the outcomes of some battles were influenced significantly by the good or bad decisions of the top generals. But the decisions that had that effect were maybe one or two per battle. Who wants to play a game in which you get to make only one or two interesting decisions? Hell with it; roll the die, resolve the battle, and let's move on.

[jchastain]

As has been stated, the player does have the ability to control much more than any one person would have in real life. That is common among games in that a strategy game should be won or lost based on the players strategy while real world results are often influenced by a significant degree of randomness and things outside of one's control. But how much fun would that be?

That said, as I attempted to explain in the Game Options thread, this title does give players a high degree of control over the gaming experience. As discussed in this thread, you have the ability to direct both the strategic and tactical situations. Many players will enjoy that additional level of control. But for those who want to play a purely strategic game - you can do that and it is fun even without the tactical elements. In PBEM, the game does not employ the tactical screens. It would take far too long to get anything accomplished if you tried to fight each battle brigade by brigade in email - so the game just uses instant combat resolution for all battles in PBEM. And some of my most enjoyable games have been in PBEM. The strategic game really does stand on its own as a complete game that is thoroughly enjoyable.

Let me touch of a few additional points. Jonathan, when you say as President you want to buy rifles but not distribute them, I think you'll find the balance you are asking for with the supply rules. With Advanced Supply, you have to manage the supply levels of your forces but you can do so at the Army level. If you use that without enabling weapon upgrades essentially you are allocating resources for your offensives and deciding how aggressive to be and having to bear the cost of multiple campaigns without having to micromanage details such as which units carry which rifles.

As for the point about generals not having the degree of control you find in games, that is also true. As discussed above, there is good reason for that additional level of control in that it isn't much fun to not have control in a strategy game and I don't think that concern is limited to this one title. And I must add that the designers of this game did attempt to model that very concern to some degree at least. Troops in the game do misinterprit orders. Sometimes, they don't go exactly where you wanted them to. Additionally, they can go "out of control" where you loose the ability to give orders to units entirely because they broke under fire or simply wandered too far away from the command structure. In those cases, a general must attempt to reexert control over them and bring them back into line. So, while the degree of control the player exerts far exceeds that of any historical commander, you do still have some of the historical flavor of things not always going exactly to plan.

[Graycompany]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey


Yes, this is something that game players seem to want, but it's cheating. Lincoln and Davis would have loved to direct the tactics as well as the strategy, but they couldn't and they didn't. If you insist on wearing multiple hats, you ought to face the fact that you're not really simulating anything real, you're just playing around in some kind of fantasy world.

I prefer to feel that I'm confronting the sort of challenges that real people confronted in the 19th century. Their battles were out of their direct control; so my battles should be out of my direct control too. No-one really controlled a 19th-century battle very much; it took its own course, influenced by the decisions of all the people who took part in it. From a game player's point of view, a die roll is a good way to represent it.

It's wishful thinking to imagine that you could have influenced it very much, had you been there.

It's true that the outcomes of some battles were influenced significantly by the good or bad decisions of the top generals. But the decisions that had that effect were maybe one or two per battle. Who wants to play a game in which you get to make only one or two interesting decisions? Hell with it; roll the die, resolve the battle, and let's move on.

Well, I would not call playing a game that has options cheating. I understand your playing style and that is fine. But to say others are "cheating" because they want to have more detail is just wrong. Who says that you are just one person? that you have to be the President, why cant you be a Commander of an army or the quartermaster?, or a brigade commander? You also say Lincoln would want to have tactical control, I disagree. Linclon often did not take enough control, having on a number of occasions to order his Generals to move the Army. I doubt very much that he picked which weapons would be produced or how the supply would be distributed. Perhaps they will have an option where you can email someone that has the game and then that person will decided what you want and if they will follow your orders.

Die rolls, like a 1d6 roll means only 1 out of 6 things can happen, I like to think that there are more options that could take place. Being able to be different people in the game at different levels is quite appealing, rather than have to buy 5 different types of games, why not buy one, and customize it to what you like? Newsflash, this is fantasy. [8|][:D]

[Hard Sarge]

I doubt very much that he picked which weapons would be produced or how the supply would be distributed. Perhaps they will have an option where you can email someone that has the game and then that person will decided what you want and if they will follow your orders.

yea but, didn't Linclon do just that ?, I think it was the Spencer, the quatermaster turned it down and then the designer took it to Linclon and let him shoot it and show it off, and he ended up liking it and putting a order in for it

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Graycompany
Well, I would not call playing a game that has options cheating.

My apologies: I got a bit carried away yesterday and expressed myself too strongly. It feels wrong to me to play as the president and also as several levels of the military hierarchy all at the same time; but if you want to do it, of course you're entitled, and I didn't mean to suggest that there's anything immoral about it...

I just feel that, if you regard the game as a simulation, it weakens the quality of the simulation.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: jchastain
The strategic game really does stand on its own as a complete game that is thoroughly enjoyable.

Yes, that's what I'd expect, and that's why I'm keen to buy the game.

ORIGINAL: jchastain
Jonathan, when you say as President you want to buy rifles but not distribute them, I think you'll find the balance you are asking for with the supply rules. With Advanced Supply, you have to manage the supply levels of your forces but you can do so at the Army level. If you use that without enabling weapon upgrades essentially you are allocating resources for your offensives and deciding how aggressive to be and having to bear the cost of multiple campaigns without having to micromanage details such as which units carry which rifles.

Thanks, that sounds good.

ORIGINAL: jchastain
As discussed above, there is good reason for that additional level of control in that it isn't much fun to not have control in a strategy game and I don't think that concern is limited to this one title.

That concern is certainly not limited to this one title: almost every battle game gives the player far too much control over what's going on. Players may enjoy having that level of control -- just as the generals at the time would have loved to have it -- but it means that the game can't claim to be a simulation. Fortunately, grand strategy can be simulated in a way that's both enjoyable and fairly accurate; which is why I prefer to play strategical-level games rather than tactical-level (battle) games.

[Graycompany]

Not a problem, was a good spirited discussion. Offer still stands for a PBEM when you are comfortable with the game [:D]

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Yes, this is something that game players seem to want, but it's cheating.

"Cheating" is doing something contrary to the game rules or against good sportsmanship. I hardly think switching options on or off to suit our personal styles is in the same category as cheating.

Lincoln and Davis would have loved to direct the tactics as well as the strategy, but they couldn't and they didn't.

Actually, Lincoln did try to take personal command of at least one attack on a Confederate fort early in the war. But he quickly learned that it was best left to professionals.

If you insist on wearing multiple hats, you ought to face the fact that you're not really simulating anything real, you're just playing around in some kind of fantasy world.

And the problem with this is... ? It's a computer game. I've had my tour of duty in the real Army, and frankly I don't want to engage in another real firefight. To me, computer wargames are a safe, relaxing pastime that exercise my mind and satisfy my curiousity -- if it were "real", I wouldn't want anything to do with it.

It's true that the outcomes of some battles were influenced significantly by the good or bad decisions of the top generals. But the decisions that had that effect were maybe one or two per battle. Who wants to play a game in which you get to make only one or two interesting decisions? Hell with it; roll the die, resolve the battle, and let's move on.

To each his own. The beauty of FoF seems to be that each of us can play exactly how we choose to play, and that's why I'm so excited.