The historical test

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"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...

I do like how he seems to argue that the South should have the possibility to do what it didnt do historically BUT the North should not. )

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"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...

Are you interested in a serious discussion or not? If not, I'll gladly move on.

Of course, I'm not for hard-coding the outcome - either way. We've been discussing what is the most reasonable set up for the base game in terms of balance. And I'm simply saying that it ignores too much of history to merely model the numbers - to say, for example, that since the North had four times the population, it should be able to build four times the number of troops. That is an overly simplistic view of both the ACW and what should be simulated in the game.

I think the designers here have tried to model some of the factors that served to constrain the North in real life. Some are explicitly modeled. Others are abstracted or implied. While I don't dispute that many of the details could stand some tweaking, I applaud the fact that the designers have tried to model both the numbers and the intangibles. Again, it would have been far easier for the designers to have simply copied accounting ledgers without regard to the subtleties of what actually occurred and why.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Joram

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. [;)]

And yet, I'm glad the computer folks try.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

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.

I've never argued based solely on numbers. That would be folly.

However, I have argued on game outcome(s). No matter how the game is tweaked, within the constraints offerred, there is simply no combination (I have been able to find) that allows anything close to historical outcome. Pick a power setting, and you can win playing as the Union and as the South with the same settings. The naval/blockade portion of the game is badly out of whack; the Southern replacements allow them to hang on forever; seiges are freqently too bloody and take too long, etc.

I am not saying it is easy to do, but part of the challenge of designing a game like this is to allow some level of historical reality based on game outcome. I am all for "what if" scenarios, but I would very much like a level-setting game set-up that comes somewhat close to showing historical results.

Regards,
Feltan

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"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...

Are you interested in a serious discussion or not? If not, I'll gladly move on. Of course I am. But you are suggesting that because it took the North until the Summer of 1864 to fully make use of their superior numbers and material, the game should "hard code" it's impossibility during the whole war. I mearly "called you" on the "one-sidedness" of your proposition.

Of course, I'm not for hard-coding the outcome - either way. We've been discussing what is the most reasonable set up for the base game in terms of balance. And I'm simply saying that it ignores too much of history to merely model the numbers - to say, for example, that since the North had four times the population, it should be able to build four times the number of troops. That is an overly simplistic view of both the ACW and what should be simulated in the game. The South "lucked" into Robert E. Lee..., suppose Joe Johnson hadn't been wounded at Seven Pines? I don't see you proposing the possibility that Lee not be available to the Confederacy. But you seem willing to leave Grant out for most of the game. Suppose he had been brought East instead of Pope? Pope took Island No. 10---Grant took Henry and Donaldson, then managed a "win" at Shiloh. Either could have been the choice. The Game doesn't even have him available as a leader then..., but I don't see you complaining about that.

[Twotribes]

Actually the game already HAS a mechanism to restrict the North from recruiting every available able bodied man. If you strip your cities of population you lose production. Granted it is a feature that can be turned off, but the point is the base game COULD have included realistic population numbers with production being effected at a level based on historical recruitment.

What it has now is a population used to enforce a SMALLER army on both sides. And if one pays attention to what is being said in the suggestions for "improvements" there is a move afoot to even more severely restrict armies by tieing replacements to that shrunken population.

Add to that the fact that the designers assume that every person that ever gets sick dies, tied to an inability to provide medical coverage to an army in enemy territory and you can quickly melt away the non exsistant manpower advantage the North ( doesnt have in the game) has since IT not the South MUST go on the Offensive in order to win.

You can argue till your blue in the face BUT the reality is the base game gives TOO much to the South. Or takes to much away from the North. Your pick. The economy is no were near historical, once again, the only clear advantage given in the stock game goes to the SOUTH not the North. Add in the freebies from European Countries randomly slipping tons of goods through the non exsistant blockade and the very real possibility that both France and England will attack the US and the base game is closer to fantasy then reality.

The biggest glaring, obvious , problem is of course the Naval situation. Within a year ( 18 months max) the US had an effective blockade of all Southern Ports as well as was siezing some from the sea. That is IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate in the base game. Add to that the starting Union Navy is weaponless and that the South, which had no real blue water Navy, has 50 ships to the US's 90 and you have a MAJOR disconnect with the REAL world.

On the ground side, the South is free to raise ( within the already limited population) troops and strip garrisons from States that REFUSED to allow any such actions and you argue that the North shouldnt be able to do the same?

Again there is in the game a mechanism for controlling the free use of large armies. Rather than limit the population unrealisticly , use the Governors to demand garrisons based on troops raised from that State. Remove those Garrisons and suffer the Consequences from disgruntled State Governors hampering the war effort.

Reread what you have argued. You have demanded that the South be free to do what if till the cows come home BUT the North should be prevented from even getting what it had historicaly.

[von Beanie]

I have already given up on this game for now because the "standard" scenario doesn't come close to representing the real situation faced by either side in the actual Civil War. To salvage the game I'm sure hoping that the next patch begins to correct the major issues. The Union can't come close to recreating the historical campaigns in the western theatre, and the eastern theatre is usually static.

I agree with the earlier post that the default advanced game highly favors the South. And it doesn't matter whether you play the AI or another human (I've tried both). I'm wondering how many of the people who mention what a good game this is have played the Union and tried to accomplish what the Union actually accomplished on the historic timeline? (I simply don't believe that Hard Sarge, or anyone else, could consistently conquer Forts Henry, Donelson and take Nashville in Feb 1862 against a competent human opponent in the standard November scenario, much less take New Orleans.)

I really think that the problem stems from releasing the game too early. What this game really needed was another round of playtesting by veteran gamers AND people knowledgeable about the war. Unfortunately, Matrixgames standard operating method appears to be to release a game first, and then worry about revising it based on the players' forum comments.

I don't buy a game with the expectation of having to wait for periodic updates before the game becomes a reasonable simulation (if it is marketed as one). That's why I stopped buying Sierra games in the 1990s after being burnt a couple of times, and now Sid Meier is starting to do the same thing!

Perhaps Matrixgames should consider adding a second round of playtesting where dozens of people really interesting in the game topic could pay them $100 to receive a beta version and help revise the game BEFORE it's official release (this might solve their cashflow problem and quiet the forum posters that can't wait for the release). That way, those of us who would prefer to purchase a good, finished product could do so after most of the improvements have been completed. As it stands, I am so frustrated with this supposed simulation game that I will delay my next purchase until I am confident it is a good product--and that's not really good for anyone.

[Mike Scholl]

You've directed this reply at me..., though from it's content it certainly looks to be aimed at Queeg. At least I hope it is, because you and I are in almost total aggreement and I'd hate to think my writing was that unclear.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Actually the game already HAS a mechanism to restrict the North from recruiting every available able bodied man. If you strip your cities of population you lose production. Granted it is a feature that can be turned off, but the point is the base game COULD have included realistic population numbers with production being effected at a level based on historical recruitment.

What it has now is a population used to enforce a SMALLER army on both sides. And if one pays attention to what is being said in the suggestions for "improvements" there is a move afoot to even more severely restrict armies by tieing replacements to that shrunken population.

Add to that the fact that the designers assume that every person that ever gets sick dies, tied to an inability to provide medical coverage to an army in enemy territory and you can quickly melt away the non exsistant manpower advantage the North ( doesnt have in the game) has since IT not the South MUST go on the Offensive in order to win.

You can argue till your blue in the face BUT the reality is the base game gives TOO much to the South. Or takes to much away from the North. Your pick. The economy is no were near historical, once again, the only clear advantage given in the stock game goes to the SOUTH not the North. Add in the freebies from European Countries randomly slipping tons of goods through the non exsistant blockade and the very real possibility that both France and England will attack the US and the base game is closer to fantasy then reality.

The biggest glaring, obvious , problem is of course the Naval situation. Within a year ( 18 months max) the US had an effective blockade of all Southern Ports as well as was siezing some from the sea. That is IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate in the base game. Add to that the starting Union Navy is weaponless and that the South, which had no real blue water Navy, has 50 ships to the US's 90 and you have a MAJOR disconnect with the REAL world.

On the ground side, the South is free to raise ( within the already limited population) troops and strip garrisons from States that REFUSED to allow any such actions and you argue that the North shouldnt be able to do the same?

Again there is in the game a mechanism for controlling the free use of large armies. Rather than limit the population unrealisticly , use the Governors to demand garrisons based on troops raised from that State. Remove those Garrisons and suffer the Consequences from disgruntled State Governors hampering the war effort.

Reread what you have argued. You have demanded that the South be free to do what if till the cows come home BUT the North should be prevented from even getting what it had historicaly.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
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."

The game should include the historical population figures, and either prevent the USA from recruiting a high proportion of its population, or (better) give the US player a good reason not to do so. In fact, the upkeep costs and the reduced manpower for industry might tend to discourage very high recruitment anyway. If that's not enough, some other factor should be added (such as unrest...).

ORIGINAL: Queeg
You can remove the Confederate Air Force from my wish list. [:D]

You can have a few balloons if you like. [:)]

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

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.

Not necessarily, but at least I quoted my source. A lot of people have thrown out numbers in many threads here without doing that.

[*Lava*]

Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.

When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

Ray (alias Lava)

[regularbird]

Lava, not sure I agree with your premise. Was there anyone in 1861 that did not know what the Anaconda Plan was? Heck, The press gave it its name.

[*Lava*]

Okay try this..

Where would you put this guy..

Appointed to the military academy, he found it distasteful and hoped that Congress would abolish the institution, freeing him. He excelled only in horsemanship for that he had displayed a capability early in life and graduated in 1843, 2lst out of 39 graduates. Posted to the 4th Infantry, since there were no vacancies in the dragoons, he served as regimental quartermaster during most of the Mexican War. Nonetheless he frequently led a company in combat under Zachary Taylor in northern Mexico.

He came to greatly admire his chief but was transferred with his regiment to Winfield Scott's army operating from the coast. He received brevets for Molino del Rey and Chapultepec. With the resumption of peace he was for a time stationed in Mexico, a country which he came to admire greatly, and then was posted to the West coast. Separated from his wife, he tried numerous business ventures to raise enough capital to bring her to the coast but proved singularly unsuccessful. On July 31, 1854, he resigned his captaincy amid rumors of heavy drinking and warnings of possible disciplinary action by his post commander.

His return to civilian life proved unsuccessful. Farming on his father-inlaw's land was a failure, as was the real estate business and attempts to gain engineering and clerk posts in St. Louis. He finally became a clerk in a family leather goods store in Galena, which was run by his two younger brothers. Before he had been there long the Civil War broke out. Offering his services to the War Department and to General George B. McClellan in Ohio, he met with no success in gaining an appointment.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/grantbio.htm

Given that knowledge, I wouldn't appoint him either. But I'm sure as soon as his name pops up, because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE most would make him an army commander.

Ray (alias Lava)

[regularbird]

That is why I play random-hidden leadership traits. Next question please.

[Twotribes]

A game about a historical event SHOULD have as a base the REALITY of that event. From there one allows for "balance".

[Mike Scholl]

"Offering his services to the War Department and to General George B. McClellan in Ohio, he met with no success in gaining an appointment."


If "Little Mac" turned him down I'd make him General of the Armies just on the principle that McClellan was a moral coward and that anyone he didn't like was probably a fighter.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: elmo3



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

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

Not necessarily, but at least I quoted my source. A lot of people have thrown out numbers in many threads here without doing that.

Dyer's Compendium of the War of Rebellion. A much better source than wikipedia

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.

When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

Ray (alias Lava)

That's exactly my point.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Lava
When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

Please read how I defined the historical test at the start of this thread. Why should passing that test make the game any worse? Why should failing that test make the game any better?

No-one is suggesting that games should follow the historical path. I'm only suggesting that the game should permit the historical path to be followed, if both players choose to do so.

You're right that hindsight (and being able to play the game over and over again) may and indeed should enable us to improve on the strategies originally followed. That's fine, it's surely why many people play the game.

I merely point out that, if the game doesn't permit the original strategies to be followed (with all the original blunders), there must be something wrong with it as a simulation.

And if it isn't a simulation, what's the point of labelling it as a game of the American Civil War? In what sense is it a game of the American Civil War?

If it's just a game with Civil War flavour, like icecream with whisky flavour, to hell with that, I'm not interested. Give me a bottle of whisky.

How can you say that you've improved on the original strategies if the game doesn't honestly represent the original situation?

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.

When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

Ray (alias Lava)

Having pre-knowledge is a challenge, but not a show stopper.

If one simply wants to abandon history --- fine --- just advertise the game as "Civil War Fantasy" and add anything you want.

I suspect some of the people who are Confederate cheerleaders would be happy to have panzer divisions -- and would see nothing wrong with it in the name of a good "game."

Regards,
Feltan