Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

to know the skills of each general in advance removes such a major element of the war that I prefer to have some way of avoiding it.

That was one of the things I had in mind. It's pretty easy to pick the right generals when you know their EXACT qualities. If only Lincoln had such insights.

But it goes beyond just generals. The simple knowledge of force size (or lack of knowledge thereof), both strategically and tactically, played a critical role earlier in the war. Although the basic industrial capabilities of each side was known, the ability of each side to mobilize an army, train it, equip it, and get it moving were wildcards for both sides...in all theaters of war, at the start of war.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
So I was away from the forum for a week while attending a conference, and you guys created a 9-page thread?!?!?!?

In fact the thread started two weeks ago, at the end of December.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
I'll only respond by saying that for the next patch we hope to have a new, "historical" standard scenario to complement the current standard scenario. Erik is correct that changing settings should help to create a more historical disparity when playing the game currently, but it does seem that having a scenario that is imbalanced to start with and can be tweaked further would be the way to go.

Thanks, I'm sure the new historical scenario will be much appreciated.

I don't see it as primarily a game balance issue. It's possible to have a historically-accurate and balanced game -- and the game already has a mechanism to achieve that, by giving the South extra victory points for holding out longer than it did historically.

The main issue is that things that were possible in reality should be possible in the game, and things that were impossible in reality should be impossible in the game.

put this into another thread, but it better its into this one
The war had four turning points
1)summer 1862 (Lee and Bragg->southern counteroffensive stopping an early Union victory)
2)Fall 1862 (Antietam and Perryville; South is stopped, no recognition by europe, democrats do not win a land slide victory in the mid term elections, also provides basis for emancipation proclamation)
3)summer and fall 1863 (Gettysburg, Chattanooga and Vicksburg; North on course towards Victory again)
4)summer 1864 (horrible losses of the union and standstill in front of Richmond/Petersburg and Atlanta almost lead to democratic victory in 1864 election)
Only after the capture of Atlanta and the Shenandoah campaign of Sheridan against Early Lincolns reelection was assured, leading to the only now inevitable outcome of a Northern Victory
all this is about battles and the home front reacting to it (esspecially on the union side)
a victory at Antietam/Sharpsburg or Gettyburg or a longer standstill in front of Atlanta could have resulted in recognition of the confederacy by europe an eventually a democratic Victory in the 1862 and 1864 elections

The population bonus of the north did not really help. since the union had difficulties finding people who were willing to fight; actually, during all of 1861 the armies of USA and CSA were about the same size.

regarding economics, the union had to import arms up until 1864. in early 1862, most of the troops on both sides were still equipped with muskets;during 1862, this changed on the union side; the CSA followed in 1863; the rifle meant that the attacker needed at least a 3:1 advantage to succesfully win (at Fort Fisher, the ratio was 4:1 (8000 union against 2000 "rebels", with the union loosing 1000 men in the attack, and this after a gigantic 800 ton bombardement by 60 warships); so if you attack often, you loose more men.
up to what i have seen now, the game copies this rather well.
The only thing not well presented are the possibilitys opened by naval warfare (historically, by april 1862 all ports except Charleston and Wilmington were closed to blockade runners, try to accomplish that in the game) but then again, i haven't seen a single game capable of accomplishing that (VG Civil War, For the People, they all fail)

regarding the availability of generals, there is a chance to randomize and hide the stats. you still get good generals, but it takes a while to find them

The population bonus of the north did not really help. since the union had difficulties finding people who were willing to fight; actually, during all of 1861 the armies of USA and CSA were about the same size

 
Wow. Where do you get this stuff? The North had no trouble finding men to fight. They got more than 2.5 million while having a huge increase in production. The union army had 575,000 men at the end of 1861 and the south had 326,000, That's a long way from 1 to 1.

the total number of the union men capable of taking up arms was much larger than the number of men actually mobilized.
The superiority was 3.5:1 in total number of white men capable of taking up arms
the actual superiority of men wearing uniforms were 2,5:1. in June 1861, the CSA had a larger army than the union, this slowly changed during 1861 (that is what i meant, boy are you guys picky), and by 1862, the union actually had the 2.5:1 superiority

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

the total number of the union men capable of taking up arms was much larger than the number of men actually mobilized.
The superiority was 3.5:1 in total number of white men capable of taking up arms
the actual superiority of men wearing uniforms were 2,5:1. in June 1861, the CSA had a larger army than the union, this slowly changed during 1861 (that is what i meant, boy are you guys picky), and by 1862, the union actually had the 2.5:1 superiority

How about something to back that up. What source says the confederates had more men than the Union in june 1861?

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

the total number of the union men capable of taking up arms was much larger than the number of men actually mobilized.
The superiority was 3.5:1 in total number of white men capable of taking up arms
the actual superiority of men wearing uniforms were 2,5:1. in June 1861, the CSA had a larger army than the union, this slowly changed during 1861 (that is what i meant, boy are you guys picky), and by 1862, the union actually had the 2.5:1 superiority

How about something to back that up. What source says the confederates had more men than the Union in june 1861?

This is not at all unlikely. Lincoln called for 75,000 "3-Month Volunteers" to help the US Army put down the rebellion. But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South.

But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states.
And when in spite of inferior numbers the South won at Bull Run, complacency set in in the South while the shock of reality hit the North. At that point the numeric edge shifted to the North and never looked back.

The US military had a strength of about 24,000 men in april 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers in April. He called for another 42,000 in May and increased the size of the regular military by 38,000 in May. In both calls for Volunteers the states exceeded their quota. That's a minimum of 179,000 by june.In mid July the Union had 64,000 men in Virginia facing 39,000 confederates. That's not counting the men in the Washington defences. Surely the confederates would've sent more men to defend their capital and most populous state if they had them.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The US military had a strength of about 24,000 men in april 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers in April. He called for another 42,000 in May and increased the size of the regular military by 38,000 in May. In both calls for Volunteers the states exceeded their quota. That's a minimum of 179,000 by june.In mid July the Union had 64,000 men in Virginia facing 39,000 confederates. That's not counting the men in the Washington defences. Surely the confederates would've sent more men to defend their capital and most populous state if they had them.

All true..., but remember that most of the 24,000 "Regulars" were on the "frontier" and would remain there. And the 75,000 "3-month" volunteers of April would have "gone home" by August. And both sides had Governors who wanted to keep "their boys" home to protect the State (though this was much more prevelant in the South where so many states had vulnerable coastlines). That at some point in the Spring of 1861 the South might have had more men "on the rolls" than the North is not unimaginable----but as you point out the North was virtually always superior in numbers along the border "conflict zones". Lacking a Navy, and with substandard internal communications lines, the South had no choice but to spread units all along it's vulnerable coasts. The "skimped" a bit in the Winter of 1862 and lost New Orleans as a result. They were truely between "a rock and a hard place".

Most of the 75,000 3-month men reenlisted and almost all of the regular army fought the confederates. Look up the regimental histories.

Just to chime in...this was posted in Jackerson's just wondering thread from I think Eric in response to why Jakerson as the North was sustained something like 40:1 (not kidding) battle losses:

My suggestion for the future would be to focus on the defensive, particularly in the East, as the Union and force him to pay for each engagement

I know that this has been hashed and rehashed above, but in suml...isn't that sort of the problem that ppl are having?  I mean... all other play balancing issues aside, logically, in a civil war of any type, all the secessionist/rebels have to do is stay in the field.  But yet, the game favors a strategy whereby the group in power, must play defensively.  Its illogical.

Jack,

That's way too much of a generalization of my advice, which was specific to Jakerson's situation. Playing as the Union in FoF, I am absolutely on the offense.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik-

I definitely appreciate how responsive, you, and everyone else thats had a hand in this game is.  Thank you.

But, to be honest, at this point, FoF is becoming more frustrating then fun.  I want to enjoy this game...I really do, but I can't get over some of the game mechanics and design decisions.  Hopefully when the new patch is out, things change....

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Probley the new civilwar game coming out by Pocus and friends will be much more historical. However I do like this one but it is Not history.

Which civil war game are you referring to?

Its from AGEod based on their successful BOA engine.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South.
But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states.

How true is it that there were more Southern state militia than Northern states?
Almost all the early regiments on both sides were formed from state militia. I have never been able to find the numbers that indicate that the south had a larger militia tradition.

The south mobilized earlier than the north so the numbers were somewhat close in early and mid 1861. After Bull Run Lincoln called for 400,000 more volunteers and it was never close again.

The North had more pre-war Militia than the South did simply because the North had a larger population.
 
The Detroit Light Guard for instance, and that's who the Detroit Tigers Baseball Club asked for and got permission to use the name 'Tigers'. Just one example of many, many more in the Northern states. The DLG was formed in 1855 from the previosuly existing Brady Guards, named after Bde. Gen. Hugh Brady, which had itself evolved from the Detroit City Guard(s) that had fought in the Black Hawk War and disbanded in 1832 at the end of that war. The Detroit Light Guard exisits today in the form of Company A, 1st Bn. 125th Inf. Regt.
 
The DLG also pursued Pancho Vila, served in the Spanish American war in Cuba I do believe, and in Iraq, etc.
 
Chris in Day-twah, the straits.
 

Erik's settings and advice, see pages 6 & 7 of this thread, are great and, I believe, render the game historically "acceptable."

You don't want to overdue historical "accuracy" with this particular game system or you won't have enought decisions to make. There are only a finite number of ways to invade the South. You want, as designer, to retain as many options for the North as possible, Anaconda, prefer Mississippi, prefer center, prefer east, concentrate on camps, muster, navy, etc.

On the other hand, I am waiting for the next patch before I get back into the game because the retreat bug is a show stopper for me.

Exactly, and what you said is a big part of the picture.

Chris