Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Here's how to modify this. Go to ACWStart.txt in the data folder and open it up (preferably in Excel). Then scroll down to about the 284th line, which has the label "ironclads" and delete the SECOND row, the one with a 2 in the second column. Throughout the game, USA is country 1, CSA is country 2. If you just expunge that row completely, those ironclads should disappear.

Sorry, no good story about why they're there. I asked Eric, and he says some of the beta-testers wanted them. Since the beta-testers represent all of you, that means you guys wanted them too.

It's a good thing the beta testers didn't want aircraft carriers.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Here's how to modify this. Go to ACWStart.txt in the data folder and open it up (preferably in Excel). Then scroll down to about the 284th line, which has the label "ironclads" and delete the SECOND row, the one with a 2 in the second column. Throughout the game, USA is country 1, CSA is country 2. If you just expunge that row completely, those ironclads should disappear.

Sorry, no good story about why they're there. I asked Eric, and he says some of the beta-testers wanted them. Since the beta-testers represent all of you, that means you guys wanted them too.

It's a good thing the beta testers didn't want aircraft carriers.

I think the South should be able to build them just it would really cost alot.
A fleet of them however is a bit much

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Here's how to modify this. Go to ACWStart.txt in the data folder and open it up (preferably in Excel). Then scroll down to about the 284th line, which has the label "ironclads" and delete the SECOND row, the one with a 2 in the second column. Throughout the game, USA is country 1, CSA is country 2. If you just expunge that row completely, those ironclads should disappear.

Sorry, no good story about why they're there. I asked Eric, and he says some of the beta-testers wanted them. Since the beta-testers represent all of you, that means you guys wanted them too.

It's a good thing the beta testers didn't want aircraft carriers.
[/quote


Yea..., or the "Stonewall Jackson Panzer Parachute Division". OK, Gill..., but next time you guys are "beta testing" an historical game, how about including some Historians on the testing team? At least it will keep the odder discussions out of the forum. Me..., I'll be deleting BOTH sets of Ironclads from the scenario. Thanks for the "how to".

I would be nice if one of those testers concerned would expose their heads above the parapet and explain exactly why the wanted them.

I've got an open mind on this one. FoF is a strategy game based on the ACW, not a simulation of it, let alone a military simulation of it. In such a game huge liberties have to be be taken in regard to other aspects of play just to keep the game manageable, playable, balanced and even codeable, which everyone accepts without batting an eyelid. Knowing the nature of the 'usual' variety of Matrix tester I can't believe they would want a blatant historical inaccuracy without a reason, such as gameplay balance for example.

Anyone brave enough to say what that reason was?

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition."

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition."

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Given your address, your opinion may count as "source material". Though couldn't the emphasis also be expressed, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"? Either way, as visitors go, I imagine they were not a welcome sight.....

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've been avoiding comment since I didn't work on this area of the game, but I'll say that the game can be modified so that those ironclads are gone. If you guys twist my arm I'll tell you how...

You are avoiding my question. HOW DID SUCH SILLYNESS GET IN TO THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I know it can (and should be) fixed...., but why is such a "fix" necessary? Is one of the designers a Star Trek fan who just couldn't resist a bit of "Sci-Fi"? Did it grow out of a long weekend and an empty keg? What's the story?

Even if your are "pissed" about certain game features there is no need to yell here. Roger?

Sorry, no good story about why they're there. I asked Eric, and he says some of the beta-testers wanted them. Since the beta-testers represent all of you, that means you guys wanted them too.

It's a good thing the beta testers didn't want aircraft carriers.

 
Great line, but this is really a significant problem, and I think a big misstep by the game creators.  What is the name of this game? it is "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865".  The CSA sailing around with a whole fleet of ocean going ironclads in November 1861 might be "fun", but it has no connection with the American Civil War.  Perhaps truth in advertising might call for the game to be called "Forge of Freedom: Beta Testers Flights of Fancy".  In AU Tiger's thread called Epiphany about the level of accuracy in the game, I remember the outcome as tending toward the conclusion that it's ok for the game creators to leave out what they wish for simplicity sake, but what they chose to put in should be accurate.  To see an intentional mistake like this built into a game with a 200 page manual is frustrating.  I too would like to see some of the beta testers step out and argue for why this choice was the right one. 
 
Not that I am giving up on the game by any means.  Personally, since my personality type forbids me from playing anything less than the most advanced version, and from playing tutorials, and from sitting down and reading the manual properly, I am still working myself up the learning curve slowly [:)]  Hopefully by the time the first patch comes out fixing the fort/seige CTD problem, I will be ready for some email or direct competition, then we'll see how fun this game is.   

I think everyone needs a, a, a, thats right-"A Group Hug"[:D] Even though I agree with you guys. They need to sink those non-historical boats.[X(]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've been avoiding comment since I didn't work on this area of the game, but I'll say that the game can be modified so that those ironclads are gone. If you guys twist my arm I'll tell you how...

You are avoiding my question. HOW DID SUCH SILLYNESS GET IN TO THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I know it can (and should be) fixed...., but why is such a "fix" necessary? Is one of the designers a Star Trek fan who just couldn't resist a bit of "Sci-Fi"? Did it grow out of a long weekend and an empty keg? What's the story?

We all get you don't like it,I have a problem with it as well however just from your sarcastic tone if I was one of the dev's i'd tell you to piss up a rope.

That's what Scholl does... It's ALL he does...

Maybe he can whine up here for a bit, so the WitP forum doesn't have to listen to him[8|]

Gil,

First, great game. I know the game is not 100% historical, but from my standpoint, that is what I was looking for. So I'm ok with things like this, as long as it doesn't go too far. However, quick question. If these lines are removed, does this just remove the fleet of ironclads or does this remove all ironclads from the game?

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've been avoiding comment since I didn't work on this area of the game, but I'll say that the game can be modified so that those ironclads are gone. If you guys twist my arm I'll tell you how...

You are avoiding my question. HOW DID SUCH SILLYNESS GET IN TO THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I know it can (and should be) fixed...., but why is such a "fix" necessary? Is one of the designers a Star Trek fan who just couldn't resist a bit of "Sci-Fi"? Did it grow out of a long weekend and an empty keg? What's the story?

Even if your are "pissed" about certain game features there is no need to yell here. Roger?

I wasn't "pissed". That was tophat1812 who brought up urination. I was simply repeating the question I'd asked several times before in a VISABLE manner in hopes it might finally generate an answer. Which it did. I've never thought of "print" as anything but a "silent" medium...

Caps in forums are considered "yelling".

Funny how people seem to forget that... a lot...

Well, Mike, I'm glad you brought it up, anyway.

Grossly unhistorical features do the game a disservice and are bound to cause complaints. I think it was a misjudgment to have included something like this. What next? Re-equip the Confederates with AK-47s?

Re the Spanish Inquisition, both Gil and I were quoting from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

ORIGINAL: slybelle
If these lines are removed, does this just remove the fleet of ironclads or does this remove all ironclads from the game?

It just removes the Confederate ironclad fleet at the start.

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: slybelle
If these lines are removed, does this just remove the fleet of ironclads or does this remove all ironclads from the game?

It just removes the Confederate ironclad fleet at the start.

Thanks

I understand the whole unhistorical dissatisfaction, but the resentment seems a little over the top.

A solution has been given to your concerns, move on, the thread and issue you brought up are irrelevant once Gil addressed them.

Have another issue you liked addressed, start another thread.

This game looks interesting and does alot of things Civil War games have never done before, but there are a few things which prevent a purchase from me.

First is the hamstringing of the northern side.
I live in the South and to a certain extent understand their plight, and most of the time when I play CW games I do so from their side.
But the northern side is just joke. From reading the AARs it looks like the economic situation is completly out of whack.
The northern side should have enough money to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to do it. It should not have to sacrifice the diplomatic side of things to build extra rifles.
The north during the entire conflict never had a single resource shortage or money shortage.
The only problems it had were ones of time. It takes time to raise and equip an army and put the infrastructure it place to do so.
Money and resources were never a problem.
This would have to mirror reality more before I even contemplated a purchase.

Secondly the diplomacy model needs a total rework.
The model as it exists now is simply dumping money into it and hoping the dice rolls come out your way.
There is no dipolmacy to it at all.
No policy decisions, no random events to shift things one way or another. No realistic resource decisions like giving wheat to England during their wheat famine or cotton to France and England.
Instead you simply have a system of putting money into three different options and hoping for the best.
It is lazy game developing and shotchanging a very imporant aspect of the war.

This is a better effort than anything before it. But still falls short of a decent treatment of the ACW at the grand level.
Hopefully the team can keep at it and with a few sequels under their belt put out something that finally warrents a purchase.