Matrix Games Forums

Ugh! Nothing more than a forum bully. So only a few uber Dahlgren guns were produced IRL. This is a game where you can change what happened IRL. You can have McClellan lead a successful campaign against Lee, the South can actually win the war, the North can choose not to follow the Anaconda plan, and the Union War Department can be directed to produce more uber Dahlgren guns. To me that seems like alternative history, which is what these games are supposed to create. Call it sci-fi if you would like but that would not be a proper description. If a weapon was able to be produced during the war then it should be available to the player. If the weapon was rarely available IRL then make it more expensive or more difficult to produce. But that is just my "little narrow-minded thought pattern"

Well put chrisof139, I do believe that this is a great game and in the end any "criticism" is not aimed at the anyone who helped build this game. It is rather "constructive" talk about how Forge of Freedom can be the best game it can be.

As I have acknowledged before in regards to the navy side of things being secondary in this game, you can not dismiss how important the navy aspect is to the entire strategy of winning the American Civil War.

It's not like someone is suggesting that we absolutely need Detailed Naval Battles, all that is being suggested is a couple more options that is in context the real navy war.

Will not making naval changes make this game worst off - hell no.

Take it or leave it, after all this is a democracy

I think this is a matter of personal preference -- how much a player wants to push the boundaries beyond what happened to what could have conceivably be done.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to have additional naval guns to choose from, and I see why someone said it seemed odd to be able to jump right away all the way to the uberweapon. Perhaps those should be available only after more naval research, or should be more expensive than they are now.

ORIGINAL: Dasara II

Well put chrisof139, I do believe that this is a great game and in the end any "criticism" is not aimed at the anyone who helped build this game. It is rather "constructive" talk about how Forge of Freedom can be the best game it can be.

As I have acknowledged before in regards to the navy side of things being secondary in this game, you can not dismiss how important the navy aspect is to the entire strategy of winning the American Civil War.

It's not like someone is suggesting that we absolutely need Detailed Naval Battles, all that is being suggested is a couple more options that is in context the real navy war.

Will not making naval changes make this game worst off - hell no.

Take it or leave it, after all this is a democracy [:)]

ORIGINAL: christof139
Who in the heck are you suppossed be?? It is very unhistorical to have uber weapons in a game that were produced in a total quantity of SEVEN pieces and that were never used in combat. That is Sci-Fi to me.
....
And yes, only "historical' weapons should be used in a historical game, otherwise the game becomes a Turtledovish and Victorian Age Sci-Fi game.

There are errors in the land weapons too, as I and others have pointed-out.

My whole point is that more people like a historically accurate ACW game rathr than a non-historical Victorian Age Sci-Fi game. Some things can be stretched or altered, such as moving your commanders around where they wern't etc., but to have weapons in a game that can affect a game's play and outcome greatly is maybe stretching it too far.

This is constructive criticism, as many others have given here.

Bully would be appropriate. You consistantly name call, order people around and make disparaging remarks about PEOPLE posting in a game forum that are neither attacking you nor disparaging you. Your points are lost because as a bully you dont discuss you order and anyone with a different view is immediantly attacked by you for the audacity of disagreeing with you.

I suggest YOU grow up. As for me your assumptions are ridiculous in the extreme.

This is a public forum. EVERYONE is entitled to their views. Your attacks are unwelcome in my opinion. Personal attacks and innuando are something you seem to excell at.

Rather than order everyone else around I suggest you post your opinions in a less hostile manner and not instantly attack anyone that happens to disagree with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
Who in the heck are you suppossed be?? It is very unhistorical to have uber weapons in a game that were produced in a total quantity of SEVEN pieces and that were never used in combat. That is Sci-Fi to me.
....
And yes, only "historical' weapons should be used in a historical game, otherwise the game becomes a Turtledovish and Victorian Age Sci-Fi game.


See, we just disagree about this. I don't think it's science fiction to have a piece that was produced in 1864 to be produced in 1862 if the player chooses one upgrade instead of another and decides to spend funds in one way instead of another. Construction on the 20-inch Dahlgrens was, in fact, first ordered in 1862, though due to delays the first wasn't actually finished until 1864. To compare the inclusion of an 1864 weapon in a Civil War game with Harry Turtledove's novel which has AK-47's in the Civil War seems like an insulting exaggeration.


quote:


There are errors in the land weapons too, as I and others have pointed-out.


I have addressed any of these that have come to my attention. I believe that people were simply looking at other issues of the weapons than we were, or did not realize that for some weapons we were include aggregate statistics from several issues of that weapon type. We are planning to change two of the weapons' statistics in the patch, this will reflect different issues of the weapons and is mostly being done for the sake of game play balance. All of our weapon statistics are based on historical research -- there are different sources of data available, and we have opted to use what seem to be more realistic battlefield numbers for the ranges rather than the more theoretical numbers that come from firing range tests. But it is wrong to imply that our weapon data is not historical just because someone found a different statistic or two somewhere.


quote:


My whole point is that more people like a historically accurate ACW game rathr than a non-historical Victorian Age Sci-Fi game. Some things can be stretched or altered, such as moving your commanders around where they wern't etc., but to have weapons in a game that can affect a game's play and outcome greatly is maybe stretching it too far.


I can't imagine that the 20-inch Dahlgren alone would affect the outcome of the game -- as it is now, the weapon is priced so expensively that it is probably a poor game strategy to use many of them.


quote:


This is constructive criticism, as many others have given here.


I have to beg to differ; the title of your thread and the tone of several of your posts seem to me inflammatory. Your posts may be "constructive criticism" but they are not just that. When you call the historicity of the game "science fiction" and compare it to a Harry Turtledove novel you are not just being constructive, you are giving people who are here on the forum to learn about Forge of Freedom for the first time a poor impression of the game. We are more than happy to take constructive criticism, and the hundreds of changes we are making to the game in the upcoming update are, I hope, a testament to the fact that we take such criticism seriously. However, please understand that these forums are our primary way of showing off our game to the public and that rather than "improve the game" posts like yours seem more like attempts to smear our game and hurt our sales and reviews.