Matrix Games Forums

But somehow, playing a Union that is severely hamstrung in several issues of gameplay on even the neutral setting is a "game"?

I'm just not seeing that.

On the harder levels, I would think it challenging to try and recreate the copurse of the war as a Union player.

YMMV of course.

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Queeg

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.

Well Sarge, two out of three isn't bad, but it's not accurate either, is it?

I've yet to see or read an AAR of all three of those happening in the same game where the computer fights the battles. Lord knows I've tried to do it almost every game I've played as the Union, and I've only been able to take Memphis and Nashville, but Never New Orleans. Must be some "trick" I am missing.

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Queeg,

Any settings you want.

Heres three main goals that the Union achieved

In April 1862, they took New Orleans. didn't bother, I went after the ANV instead
In June 1862, they took Memphis. Done it
In February, 1862, they took Nashville. Done it

I wasn't the Union tester, I was bored while waiting on the next patch, so give the Union a try

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




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

Well, as I said, I didn't bother to try, the goal was the ANV, I cut the CSA in half and crippled all the troops in the West, so the rest of the "land" area was not importent to me, the only thing that was importent was the last CSA Army, so that is where I went

ORIGINAL: Thresh

But somehow, playing a Union that is severely hamstrung in several issues of gameplay on even the neutral setting is a "game"?

Of course it is. The current game set up provides a roughly balanced challenge to either side. I have no problem with a designer opting for a balanced game as the base - a game that is challenging for the most people.

Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it.

I think you're missing the point here. Those of us who would like a game about the American Civil War are not merely interested in getting 'the historical imbalance' right. That's a relatively minor issue. We're interested in getting everything right. You could get 'the historical imbalance' right by playing a game of chess with one side handicapped by a pawn or two; but it would have nothing to do with the American Civil War.

Getting the historical imbalance right merely by manipulating the game balance controls solves nothing.

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it.

I think you're missing the point here. Those of us who would like a game about the American Civil War are not merely interested in getting 'the historical imbalance' right. That's a relatively minor issue. We're interested in getting everything right. You could get 'the historical imbalance' right by playing a game of chess with one side handicapped by a pawn or two; but it would have nothing to do with the American Civil War.

Getting the historical imbalance right merely by manipulating the game balance controls solves nothing.

Saying you want "everything" to be "right" isn't particularly instructive. (You sound like my wife. [:D])

If by that you mean tweaking the generals that are available, or removing the Southern navy, or tweaking the initial Army/Corps set up, or tweaking the precise numbers used to calculate battle losses or attrition or disease, or revising the start up buildings in certain provinces - I probably would agree with you there.

But if you're suggesting that there is some sort of universal law of game design that dictates that an ACW game is flawed unless the North wins 9 times out of 10 in the base game, then I'll just disagree. As I said several posts ago, there are two equally reasonable ways to go here: You can adopt a base model that achieves the historical result 9 out of 10 times and add options to tweak toward a more balanced game. Or you can adopt a balanced model that presents roughly equal challenges to both sides and add options to tweak toward a more historical set up.

The former has the merit of historical fidelity - assuming, of course, any consensus can be reached about exactly what that means in game terms. The latter has the merit of offering a balanced, competitive game from both sides. I have no problem with a game designer opting for the latter choice - actually makes good sense to me in terms of providing the most enjoyment to the most people.

And I still suggest that most of the folks who are complaining here have never even tried the setting adjustments already in the game and thus have no idea how the game would play with some tweaking. How does the Union fare with a full power shift to its advantage, or with a full power disadvantage against the South, or both? I haven't seen anyone post those results. Though I have seen plenty of folks who have had no difficulty winning as the Union, even in the base game.

Queeg,

If you beleive the game as it is right now is balanced....what do you think would make it unbalanced?

From my POV, the "neutral setting" should be the one that best allows the player to recreate what happened with a certain degree of historical accuracy.

Is that what the present setting accomplishes?

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Thresh

But somehow, playing a Union that is severely hamstrung in several issues of gameplay on even the neutral setting is a "game"?

Of course it is. The current game set up provides a roughly balanced challenge to either side. I have no problem with a designer opting for a balanced game as the base - a game that is challenging for the most people.

Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it.

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Queeg,

If you beleive the game as it is right now is balanced....what do you think would make it unbalanced?

From my POV, the "neutral setting" should be the one that best allows the player to recreate what happened with a certain degree of historical accuracy.

Is that what the present setting accomplishes?

Thresh

The current base game is balanced in the sense that it provides a roughly equal challenge to each side. Either side can win with skill and perseverance. This setting probably provides the most game for the most people.

Is it historical? Depends on your definition. It certainly does not reflect the overwhelming advantages that the North had on paper. But, of course, those paper advantages didn't translate especially well to the battlefield once the shooting started. So the truly historical setting, from the Northern perspective, is one of enormous potential largely unrealized. That, historically, is what actually happened.

So how do you model that? One way, probably the easiest, would be just to give the North all of its overwhelming advantages and disregard the fact that, in reality, they were never completely or efficiently utilized. Then you could hide behind the claim that you made the game as "realistic" as possible. A few - very few - people would like that.

Another, more difficult, way is to try and model the factors that prevented the North from ever bringing its full weight to bear. That's a tall task, however. But, I think, the best one as a matter of both historical fidelity and game play.

The designers here have tried to do the latter. The current set up probably favors the South too heavily as a matter of history but works well in terms of balanced game play. The power settings probably can redress much of that imbalance - assuming someone ever bothers to try them.

The American Civil War fought very differently in real life than it should have on paper - a fact for which later generations of historians, authors and gamers have been eternally grateful.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it.

I searched and fiddled with setting trying to find this, and I don't believe it is there. My last attempt had the Union at +3 power and the South at -1. You could win as the North, but not enough $$$ to build a Navy. You could win as the South too, rather easily.

I concur with what was said above; the base settings should be the designers best attempt at historical reality -- with the options to make it easier/harder spreading out from that point.

The game aspects are fine as far as I am concerned. The software is solid. The problem is that it has little to do with how the Civil War was actually fought at a strategic or tactical level. That might not be an issue for you, but it is a deal breaker for me. I am looking forward to the upcoming patch with much anticipation.

Regards,
Feltan

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Saying you want "everything" to be "right" isn't particularly instructive.

I meant simply that, as this is supposed to be a game about the American Civil War, the elements included in it should match the equivalent elements in reality. For instance, if the game includes statistics on the population or industrial production of a state, then those figures should correspond to the historical figures.

Similarly, because it's an ACW game, it should feature infantry, cavalry, and artillery; it shouldn't feature tanks, dive bombers, or nuclear missiles.

A game doesn't have to represent all elements that were present in the actual war -- it's enough to represent elements that were strategically important. But whatever elements are included in the game should be correct: you should be able to look at something in the game and say, "Yes, that's present because it was present in reality, and it has that value because it had that value in reality."

Of course the decisions of the player may alter certain values, so the designer has to make a judgment about how far the values could plausibly be altered by such decisions.

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I meant simply that, as this is supposed to be a game about the American Civil War, the elements included in it should match the equivalent elements in reality. For instance, if the game includes statistics on the population or industrial production of a state, then those figures should correspond to the historical figures.

Here is where I think we part company. To model the full disparity in Union and Confederate resources down to the last horseshoe is to give the Union an advantage that it never fully brought to bear in the war. To take but one example, the Union had a population four times that of the Confederacy (non-slave population), yet the Union army never enlisted four times the number of soldiers. To model numbers alone, without regard to whether those numbers ever actually materialized in the war as it was fought in real life, is neither "realistic" nor "historical."

Similarly, because it's an ACW game, it should feature infantry, cavalry, and artillery; it shouldn't feature tanks, dive bombers, or nuclear missiles.

OK I'll concede this one. You can remove the Confederate Air Force from my wish list. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

I concur with what was said above; the base settings should be the designers best attempt at historical reality -- with the options to make it easier/harder spreading out from that point.

And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen.

There is, of course, a compromise to be made here, and reasonable minds can differ in the details. But modeling "historical reality" requires more than simply modeling the numbers.

Thats true the Union recruited only double the number of men that the Confederacy did (not sure the game reflects that). However the residue remained available as a sizeable labour force no doubt helping to boost the Northern economy in a way that the South couldn't match with most of its white male manpower of military age under arms. In a real sense the North could have "guns and butter" and therefore had available a range of options and scale of resources which does need to be reflected in the play balance.

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Thats true the Union recruited only double the number of men that the Confederacy did (not sure the game reflects that). However the residue remained available as a sizeable labour force no doubt helping to boost the Northern economy in a way that the South couldn't match with most of its white male manpower of military age under arms. In a real sense the North could have "guns and butter" and therefore had available a range of options and scale of resources which does need to be reflected in the play balance.

About 2,750,000 men served in the union army compared to about 1,000,000 in the confederate army. At the time of Lee's surrender the North had about 1,000,000 men under arms compared to about 100,000 for the south.

Thanks. I recalled the figures as 900,000 for the Confederacy and 2 million (or 2.2?) for the Union but haven't checked them. Towards the end the South did suffer massive desertion which combined with non-replacement of heavy battle losses did increase the discepancy.

You can get the exact union figures here. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html
 
Many confederate records were lost so the best you can do is take an educated guess.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

About 2,750,000 men served in the union army ...

2,200,000 according to the Civil War Wiki.

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: chris0827

About 2,750,000 men served in the union army ...

2,200,000 according to the Civil War Wiki.

And we all know if Wikipedia says it then it must be true.

"And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen."


And "what actually did happen" is that the South Lost. Do you want that "fact of historical reality" hardcoded into the game as well? You can't have it both ways...

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I think in an unbalanced historical situation like this we have to redefine what we mean by win or lose.

I've said that many times but you need a wargamer to write the computer game. Not a computer programmer to write a wargame. [;)]