Matrix Games Forums

I posted this idea over at another forum, but I'll reiterate it here:

It would probably piss off a lot of people, but to be more "realistic" FoF could use a "fuzzy logic" determination when assessing whether the current political points would cause the game to end. Or maybe use decriptions like "political situation is tenuous" instead of saying you are 16 points behind the other guy.

Perhaps as the ultimate implimentation of this idea, an option would be presented at the start of a game to use a subjective victory accounting system. If selected, the player would have to discern how well (or how badly) he is doing based on reports from his cabinets, win or loss reports from his generals, and intelligence reports from his spies. The latter would be the way to find if support from Europe is increasing or lessening.

Of course there's no point in adding a feature if it doesn't enhance gameplay. The purpose of this mod/option would be to keep the player from making "gamey" decisions about victory points. There could even be some actions the player could take, like spending money to increase the accuracy of his intelligence, or perhaps paying off governors to keep them on your side. Perhaps if he was Union even dispatching a fleet to the Bahamas as a "show of force" to discourage the British from assisting blockage runners. Or as Confederate he could risk pissing off the Texas governer by promising compensations to Mexico if she would send some troops (or French troops) to assist.

That's an interesting suggestion.  I'd probably want to keep it fairly simple.  I like hidden information in games for which the game provides clues for you to guess at the information.  I wonder what other people would think of it?

It should be optional.

Some folks play their game in a very meticulus style, calculating down to the last decimal, their odds for victory in a battle (for example, by knowing just how much better a Lorenz is compaired to a Mississippi Rifle is, they can try to figure out how much more casualties will be inflicted, and just how much morale loss inflicted on the enemy, and so on.

"Well, my chance of vitory, this turn, in Hatchie is %56.33 (repeating, of course), and my chance of victory in Knoxville is %48.75. So I need to upgrade the rifles of a brigade there in Knoxville, as long as that brigade having a morale of 2.47 or higher, at least. That will give me an extra %5.6 (+ %.02 per point of morale above 2.47) chance of a victorious outcome there..."

Others are a little more "shoot from the hip" in play style.

It's a good suggestion and I'd use it but agreed it probably should be optional for the masses who might not like it.

I like this idea quite a lot.  I applaud anything that prevents 'sure' things in a war simulation.  I agree it would have to be optional, because since it was originally created with that concrete conditions thing, to make it 'fuzzy' would infuriate those who through their incessant need to feel always in control of every little thing, and blow their little worlds up.

And we can't have that happening, can we?

Great idea.

Great suggestion.

Options are always good, as they allow for different game styles, which should, in theory, increase interest in the game as such. My personal opinion is that less numbers and more fuzzy stuff makes for a more fun game, but as stated, there are many people out there who prefer to have lots of numbers to crunch -> This should be an option