Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I think "balanced and historically plausible" is in general a contradictory objective. Most historical war situations were not balanced.

Nor, oftentimes, are they fun. Nor, in the end, historical. Antietam: "General Burnside, take that bridge, now!" Union routs ANV. War ends. That's completely historical in the sense that it could have, should have, happened given the balance and disposition of the forces involved. But it's completely ahistorical in terms of what actually happened. So when you ask for historical fidelity, which history do you recreate: the outcome or the potential?

However, as Roger has suggested, you can balance a game by adjusting the victory conditions: in this case, the Confederate player can be awarded a win for doing better than the real Confederates did. That's sensible; and in fact FoF already implements that idea in effect, by awarding the Confederate player extra victory points from 1865 onwards. (Full marks to Western Civ for this rather neat idea.)

Yes. But then you end up with a glorified game of pinball. "Woohoo, I got 1000 points!" The bane of most "historical" wargames.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Nor, oftentimes, are they fun. Nor, in the end, historical. Antietam: "General Burnside, take that bridge, now!" Union routs ANV. War ends. That's completely historical in the sense that it could have, should have, happened given the balance and disposition of the forces involved. But it's completely ahistorical in terms of what actually happened. So when you ask for historical fidelity, which history do you recreate: the outcome or the potential?

The potential, of course. We're talking about games, not historical reenactments. If it was possible in reality, it should be possible in the game.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Yes. But then you end up with a glorified game of pinball. "Woohoo, I got 1000 points!" The bane of most "historical" wargames.

Quite a lot of different games are scored in points of some kind. That doesn't mean that there's any other similarity between them. I don't see what you're trying to say here.

I would have to agree with you Jon.[:)] Now down to the Docks to catch that boat I missed.[:D]

I like the "What If" involved with games of this nature.  With this game it's more a test of "Can I do better as the South, assuming all things are eqaul?"

The problem is the assumption that all things are equal, which from the games I have played have shown me they are not, they are skewed in the South favor.  Maybe not to much, but enough that it matters.

Ultimately, this can be solved with one simple test:

Play a game as the Union and come as close as possible to recreating the progress of the war as it happened.  
There are certain events that happened historically that are almost impossible to do in game currently, at least IMO.

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Queeg

Nor, oftentimes, are they fun. Nor, in the end, historical. Antietam: "General Burnside, take that bridge, now!" Union routs ANV. War ends. That's completely historical in the sense that it could have, should have, happened given the balance and disposition of the forces involved. But it's completely ahistorical in terms of what actually happened. So when you ask for historical fidelity, which history do you recreate: the outcome or the potential?[/quote]


"Straw Dog". True, if McClellan had just gotten his whole army to attack at 7AM the fight would have been over by 11. But "Little Mac" gets a much poorer leadership rating than Lee, so the game reflects the probability that the Union will "screw the pooch". But if Mac had gotten his head out, or Lee had had the heart attack that eventually killed him, the War could have ended at Sharpsburg. Every once in a while the Union SHOULD win big and early. Not often, but the potential is there. Much more so than for the South, which needed superior performances from it's Commanders and it's troops just to counter-balance the Union superiority in numbers and material. Even when they won spectacular victories like 2nd Manassas or Chancellorsville they simply lacked the strength to finish the task. The South needed to "pull a rabbit out of the hat" over and over to keep the war going in hopes that the North would lose heart and quit. Victory through conquest was simply beyond their capabilities.

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Ultimately, this can be solved with one simple test:

Play a game as the Union and come as close as possible to recreating the progress of the war as it happened.
There are certain events that happened historically that are almost impossible to do in game currently, at least IMO.

At what settings? Impossible under all difficulty and power settings? I doubt anyone can say that with any certainty.

What's next? Someone will say all generals killed during the war should be removed on the turn they were killed historically even if they aren't anywhere near their historical place of death i.e. Stonewall is killed at Chancellorsville while leading the Army of Tennessee near Chattanooga!

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"Straw Dog". True, if McClellan had just gotten his whole army to attack at 7AM the fight would have been over by 11. But "Little Mac" gets a much poorer leadership rating than Lee, so the game reflects the probability that the Union will "screw the pooch". But if Mac had gotten his head out, or Lee had had the heart attack that eventually killed him, the War could have ended at Sharpsburg. Every once in a while the Union SHOULD win big and early. Not often, but the potential is there. Much more so than for the South, which needed superior performances from it's Commanders and it's troops just to counter-balance the Union superiority in numbers and material. Even when they won spectacular victories like 2nd Manassas or Chancellorsville they simply lacked the strength to finish the task. The South needed to "pull a rabbit out of the hat" over and over to keep the war going in hopes that the North would lose heart and quit. Victory through conquest was simply beyond their capabilities.

Except that, in the game, McClellan won't be in command. Because the modern player, drawing on the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight, won't make that mistake. And since he's sacrificing merely silicon soldiers instead of real ones, he'll just pound away with his superior resources until the South is annihilated.

Could have, should have, happened in real life. But humans rarely act in real life with the inexorable logic of a computer and the bloodless detachment of game player. So a "simulation" can faithfully recreate the numbers and still completely miss the reality.

The ACW captures the imagination precisely because of its human element. Had the North successfully employed its superior manpower, technology and resources to crush the South in a year, do you think anyone today would be making a game about it?

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"Straw Dog". True, if McClellan had just gotten his whole army to attack at 7AM the fight would have been over by 11. But "Little Mac" gets a much poorer leadership rating than Lee, so the game reflects the probability that the Union will "screw the pooch". But if Mac had gotten his head out, or Lee had had the heart attack that eventually killed him, the War could have ended at Sharpsburg. Every once in a while the Union SHOULD win big and early. Not often, but the potential is there. Much more so than for the South, which needed superior performances from it's Commanders and it's troops just to counter-balance the Union superiority in numbers and material. Even when they won spectacular victories like 2nd Manassas or Chancellorsville they simply lacked the strength to finish the task. The South needed to "pull a rabbit out of the hat" over and over to keep the war going in hopes that the North would lose heart and quit. Victory through conquest was simply beyond their capabilities.

Except that, in the game, McClellan won't be in command. Because the modern player, drawing on the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight, won't make that mistake. And since he's sacrificing merely silicon soldiers instead of real ones, he'll just pound away with his superior resources until the South is annihilated. And who will replace him? The North's supply of competent leaders is severly restricted in the game. Mac is much better than a lot of them. Whereas the South has "Napoleons" running out of it's ears.

Could have, should have, happened in real life. But humans rarely act in real life with the inexorable logic of a computer and the bloodless detachment of game player. So a "simulation" can faithfully recreate the numbers and still completely miss the reality. But if you insist on making the sides "equal" then why can't the North start the war with Sherman and Grant and it's other good leaders? They were certainly in uniform and out there. The "simulation" MUST recreate the numbers and the infrastructure if it's to call itself the ACW. And the South's leadership edge needs to be there as well, as well as the political pressures that kept Lincoln's days miserable. But remember that Jeff Davis also had a "rough row to hoe" politically. Brown in Georgia was perhaps the biggest pain-in-the-ass of any Governor on either side.

The ACW captures the imagination precisely because of its human element. Had the North successfully employed its superior manpower, technology and resources to crush the South in a year, do you think anyone today would be making a game about it? Yes..., had Lincoln had von Moltke and the Prussian Great General Staff things would have been much easier for him. And if you DON'T give the Union "its superior manpower, technology and resources" then you are not playing the ACW. And that's what the players say they are playing..., so it ought to bear some resemblence to that event.

If by "simulation," you mean a game where the North has all of its historical advantages and the player is free to employ them in a manner that Union never actually did, then I fail to see either the "realism" or the "game" in it.

In FOF, the Union player has to think and plan and persevere to win. Turns out that's what the Union had to do in real life, too. Because, in real life, the war was decided by more than mere numbers.

And for those who want the "realism" of a Union cakewalk, no one has yet demonstrated that that result cannot be achieved by using the difficulty and power settings already in the game.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I fail to see either the "realism" or the "game" in it.

What DO you consider "realism"? I can look at the picture in your ID and know where your sympathies lie..., but what do you consider "real"? IRL the Union was a lot larger, stronger, more numerous, more industrialized, and better equipped in general than the Confederacy. That's "real"..., you can look it up in the Census of 1860 and lots of other sources. Take it away and you might as well be playing "Candyland".

The South's advantages were stumbling on some good leaders (in the East) early, and being on the "strategic defensive". Like the American Colonies 80 years before, all they really had to do was not lose. You want the "leaders" guaranteed? The game has done that. Do you want the South to win just by not losing? The game does that as well. What else do you want? It sounds like you want the Union reduced to impotency so you can realize some "South will rise again fantasy". But you could do that even if the game reflected real historical reality by just adjusting the "bonus scale". So what to you want?

ORIGINAL: Queeg

If by "simulation," you mean a game where the North has all of its historical advantages and the player is free to employ them in a manner that Union never actually did, then I fail to see either the "realism" or the "game" in it.

In FOF, the Union player has to think and plan and persevere to win. Turns out that's what the Union had to do in real life, too. Because, in real life, the war was decided by more than mere numbers.

And for those who want the "realism" of a Union cakewalk, no one has yet demonstrated that that result cannot be achieved by using the difficulty and power settings already in the game.

Difficulty settings should only be in the game to give players more of a gaming challenge. The neutral setting that gives no advantages to either side other than what they started with historically, should be the measure of how historically realistic the game is. I shouldn't have to put the Union on Power +3 and play on Major General difficulty in order to achieve somewhat historically realisitc results.

It's true that the Union player has to think and plan just as in real life but only because he's been handicapped in the name of game balance. The player isn't given the same resources or even faced with the same problems that Lincoln started with. One good example that comes to mind is the size of the Union navy. In every game I've played, I have not been able to achieve the type of blockade that the Union was actually able to plan and carry out. Another example is the leadership problem. Lincoln had problems finding good generals but in game terms you can promote at will with little to no repercussion. With the proper number of academies in place you could promote Grant or Sherman from a 1 star to a 5 star and never really have to deal with the likes of McClellan, Butler or Pope. One reason it took so long for the Union to win was that it took Lincoln time to find the right men. The game doesn't come close to representing that on any power or difficulty setting.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

What DO you consider "realism"?

A game model that imposes constraints on the North sufficient to accurately reflect the fact that never, ever, right up until the very end of the war, did the Union utilize more than a fraction of its numerical advantages. Anything else is "Candyland" in the sense of modeling something that never actually happened historically. You can't be faithful to history if you just model numbers.

It sounds like you want the Union reduced to impotency so you can realize some "South will rise again fantasy". But you could do that even if the game reflected real historical reality by just adjusting the "bonus scale". So what to you want?

I'm not the one complaining about the current set up. Though I'm not at all opposed to some tweaking here or there, I'm generally comfortable with most of the balancing choices the designers made.

Jonathan nicely framed the issue earlier in this thread: How do you model the base game? Do you adopt a model that achieves the historical result 9 out of 10 times and add options to tweak toward a more balanced game? Or do you adopt a balanced model that presents roughly equal challenges to both sides and add options to tweak toward a more historical set up?

I'm not sure it really matters much, so long as the options embrace both extremes. And I can certainly understand a designer opting for a model that provides a base game that is balanced and fun for the average gamer, with options for the grognard to tweak to his individual masochistic (or sadistic, as the case may be) delight.

And, again, for all the posting that has been done on the subject here, no one has yet shown that the game cannot be tweaked to provide the balance you advocate simply by using the options already built into the game.

You know von Zepplin was with the AotP as an observer, and that is when he was inspired to to start thinking of his latter day Zepplins, when he saw the Union observation baloons in use. He was most impressed.

Bowever, as you say, he wasn't on lincoln's or anyone's Staff. We had the Communist/Marxist German Revolutionaries such as Sigel and his friends. So, we can say the US Military did indeed have Communist/marxists in its ranks, and usually more akin to Groucho Marxists they were in many performances. [8|]

Great thread BTW.

Chris

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

It's true that the Union player has to think and plan just as in real life but only because he's been handicapped in the name of game balance.

Yes. That's my point exactly. The game offers the Union player a real challenge. Why is that bad?

Funny, the pro-Union players here sound much like I suspect the Union press did during the war. "Why aren't we winning easily? We're supposed to have all the advantages!"

Another example is the leadership problem. Lincoln had problems finding good generals but in game terms you can promote at will with little to no repercussion. With the proper number of academies in place you could promote Grant or Sherman from a 1 star to a 5 star and never really have to deal with the likes of McClellan, Butler or Pope. One reason it took so long for the Union to win was that it took Lincoln time to find the right men. The game doesn't come close to representing that on any power or difficulty setting.

Actually, the game nicely models that very issue. Play with random leader abilities. Then you can experience precisely the sort of frustration Lincoln did. Of course, your "Grant" may end up being named "Pope."

You have to choose: Do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Grant was the North's best general? Or do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Lincoln had no idea who his best general was until he had been cursed with a few duds? To my way of thinking, the latter is the most "realistic."

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Yes. But then you end up with a glorified game of pinball. "Woohoo, I got 1000 points!" The bane of most "historical" wargames.

Quite a lot of different games are scored in points of some kind. That doesn't mean that there's any other similarity between them. I don't see what you're trying to say here.

I should have addressed this earlier. I recognize the fact that many games - especially wargames - use the convention of Victory Points for balance purposes. It's just that I hate that convention.

A grand historical strategy game shouldn't require that you consult a scorecard to figure out if you won. Victory or defeat should be apparent from the organics of the game itself. A pipe dream perhaps, but I like to see game designers who try to use something other than VPs to provide balance.

Seriously, guys, it would have been far easier for the designers here to have given the North all of the numerical advantages it had on paper without any regard for the more intriguing historical question of why, despite all its advantages, the North had such a hard time winning the war. It's far easier to model hard numbers than it is intangibles.

In the end, were a game to be modeled such that one side pummeled the other 9 times out of 10, I'd find little solace in knowing that the losing player could still "win" by getting more "points" than did his real-life counterpart - who, after all, was never playing for "points" to begin with.

Queeg,

Any settings you want.

Heres three main goals that the Union achieved

In April 1862, they took New Orleans.
In June 1862, they took Memphis.
In February, 1862, they took Nashville.

Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes?

Now, mind you historically they took New Orleans and New Orleans pretty much without firing a shot. That can't happen in game unless your opponenet or the computer is quite dumb.

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Ultimately, this can be solved with one simple test:

Play a game as the Union and come as close as possible to recreating the progress of the war as it happened.
There are certain events that happened historically that are almost impossible to do in game currently, at least IMO.

At what settings? Impossible under all difficulty and power settings? I doubt anyone can say that with any certainty.

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes?

On ANY level of play? So the Union player should achieve near historical results on ANY settings?

I guess I just don't see the "game" in that.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
The game offers the Union player a real challenge. Why is that bad?

Funny, the pro-Union players here sound much like I suspect the Union press did during the war. "Why aren't we winning easily? We're supposed to have all the advantages!"

Of course the game should offer the Union player a real challenge. But the challenge it offers should ideally consist of the difficulties that were present historically.

I don't think I should be classed as a "pro-Union player". The Confederates had some serious faults, but I sympathize with their fundamental claim of the right to secede. And I usually prefer to play as the Confederates.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Actually, the game nicely models that very issue. Play with random leader abilities. Then you can experience precisely the sort of frustration Lincoln did. Of course, your "Grant" may end up being named "Pope."

You have to choose: Do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Grant was the North's best general? Or do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Lincoln had no idea who his best general was until he had been cursed with a few duds? To my way of thinking, the latter is the most "realistic."

Here I agree with you completely. Though I'd prefer to combine the advantages of both options, by hiding the generals' names initially and revealing them later, as I believe will be possible in the AGEOD game.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I recognize the fact that many games - especially wargames - use the convention of Victory Points for balance purposes. It's just that I hate that convention.

A grand historical strategy game shouldn't require that you consult a scorecard to figure out if you won. Victory or defeat should be apparent from the organics of the game itself. A pipe dream perhaps, but I like to see game designers who try to use something other than VPs to provide balance.

I have some sympathy for this point of view. If you come out of a game feeling beaten but the game says you've won, it doesn't seem right. However, if the Confederates prolong the war until 1866, that may not be a victory but at least it's an achievement (and it's an achievement that's very clear to everyone without counting up points). Perhaps ACW games should distinguish between Relative Victory and Absolute Victory.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Seriously, guys, it would have been far easier for the designers here to have given the North all of the numerical advantages it had on paper without any regard for the more intriguing historical question of why, despite all its advantages, the North had such a hard time winning the war. It's far easier to model hard numbers than it is intangibles.

In the end, were a game to be modeled such that one side pummeled the other 9 times out of 10, I'd find little solace in knowing that the losing player could still "win" by getting more "points" than did his real-life counterpart - who, after all, was never playing for "points" to begin with.

I agree that the task of modelling the war accurately is difficult. But if you give the North all its historical advantages and the result is a walkover, that means you've left out some factor that should have been included. You should go looking for that missing factor rather than deliberately falsifying the numbers.