Matrix Games Forums

so you want a historical test?
do you have joe johnston in charge of the east? do you have 20000 men being captured in fort donelson in the west? do you have mclellan vaccilating at every chance he gets?

how many of you people promote lee at the start of the game when if you wnt to accurate you should be promoting joe johnston as he was in charge as everyone knows

Missing the entire point as usual. YOU explain why, in order to make a game of it the South has to be given all the advantages even ones they didnt have and the North has to be denied the ones they DID have.

Oh dear me......

To take a comparative example.... what we are not arguing about with regard to this game is the ability, say to put Manstein or Rommel in charge of the Afrika Corps... that's a matter of allocation of actual resources available.

What we are arguing about is an equivalent game giving the Desert Rats T34s to balance up the problem of those nasty 88s etc! The resources were not there! They did not exist!

you can make a game of it as the south but are people doing that if they want a historical game then these things happened not missing the point at all i realise why the south has some advantages but so does the north if they are used to proper affect you cannot win the game in the first turn it does take time but if people want to be historicalyaccurate they have to do everything not just what they want you cannot have it both ways

Ok, I'm off to bash my head against a brick wall, its got to be easier than trying to argue this with you.....

Roger

but there is nothing asying you have to give them the t34s either if the resources are there or not there is now one to say you have to use them

I am not sure what you are saying hotdog some times i have to reread what was writtenwhen i do it makes sense sometimes it doesnt we all know that the south lost and why its just that being a southoner in heart and spirit i dont like to see them lose but hey that is the way it goes and that is the way the game is so i can understand where some people are dipleased but i am sure there will be some more historical scenarios released soon it would have to be or maybe not but the facts are the south did lose and that is the fact that the south did lose but even so i cannot help to feel both pride and anger at the sometimes false stereotype t-34 or ever uberpazershultzinlee so i can see now what we and us ween meen

mo reb


edit to add this ------> [:D]

Actually, DAK, the Afrika Korps had things more similar to the T-34's, and that would be captured Soviet AT and Gun/Howitzers of 76.2mm mounted as SPs on various vehiKles, and also used on their original ground mounts on the ground rather than as SPs.
 
So this historical aspect is well represented in the game as the game engine allows the use of captured small arms and Arty.
 
Running all did togehter we have a fair simulation of history and a game wherein either side can possibly win with nice flags and noise effects that i turn off becuase i don't like that much noise but i forgot to turn down my volume so i shoould try that and then try the game again with the noises on but with a reduced nosie volume ans it would be grat to be able to do this in the real world too but t-34's made lot's of noise so that would be unrealistic and unhistorical to turn the noise volume so I guess i will have to keep the noise volume up to be realistic and historical and just wear earplugs and wearing earplugs is realistic because people and soldiers do that around loud noise volumes and sometimes even use cigarette butts in place of earplugs when earplugs are not available but just be sure to have earplugs or their substitutes in both ears because if you have only one ear plugged it will create unequal pressure in your head and you can damage your inner ear and man=oh-man does it hurt with a nasty sharp piercing feeling that can make you dea all day and then you don't need earplugs anyway after you have become temporarily or permanently deaf and that i know fer sure.
 
Know what I meen??
 
Chris
 

I have recently edited William Amos's July 61 scenario. I am testing it out both against the AI and a PBEM opponent. What I have done is remove much of the Souths starting economy. I removed all thier mints, changed all the plantations to mansions, removed most of their arsenals, took away some research building and reduced the base province setting for iron, money, labor and horses. I think I might have it just about right. My goal was to create a base scenario that would closely resemble the starting economy of the south in comparision to the north. Against the AI I still give the north a +3 but play it staight up in PBEM.

With my edits the CSA gets about 60 money, 30 labor, 9 iron 24 horses, resaerch of about 1-4 in each cat and 5 wpns per turn. I left the USA as Amos had it in his mod.

If you are interested I will send you the files in a zip. just email me at rwrobinson@charter.net

dang it....just re-read hotdogs post again and I'll be darned if I didn't get his point. What you are saying is true that you can indeed veer off the historical path rather quickly by choosing things that were not done historically (is that supposed to be one L or 2 L's?).

Roger, would a scenario with a different starting position help, one such as regularbird is describing? Or in your opinion is it also victory point related? Meaning that the south a victory should only be achieved by holding the union until a prescribed date, even if it is a loss of the war. Or a little of both.

BTW, hotdog I hope you were not turned off by my post. I really didn't mean any malice and was just trying to be funny. At your expense it would seem. Sorry dog.

Is there a word that describes the loss of meaning when spoken word is lost during a post by someone like me who has a hard time articulating on cyber-paper? The humor is sometimes lost.

mo reb

Use of punctuation would help. Without periods, it's hard to tell where one idea ends and another begins.

"What you are saying is true that you can indeed veer off the historical path rather quickly by choosing things that were not done historically"


Actually, his "point" is still nonsense. The reason for making the scenario start as historically accurate as possible is to present the player with the same choices his historical counterparts faced..., not to force them to make the exact same choices. Making a different choice of how to use your assets is a valid course of action (wouldn't be much point in playing otherwise). Starting with assets your side never had --- or starting without assets your side did have --- that's the problem. Under those conditions ALL player choices are baloney..., because the scenario itself is a bunch of baloney.

Makes sense to me Mike, good point. That's pretty much what I was gonna say. I think a lot of people like to be put in the setting/situation and see how they can do things their own way for different results.

but they are not being put in the same situation as you suggest and i will say that i love the game the way it is i dont see the need to change it as you can set your own challenge of what you want to happen
 
was just trying to make a point

The only way you can have different situations as at the start, would be to have different starting scenarios. The main thing I believe that makes this game historical or semi-istorical is that the economies of the 2 sides have to reflect the actual economies of that time, and placement of starting armies and generals is also important but secondary to the economies, and the placement of starting armies is more important than the placement of starting generals.
 
It is also a game, not the real thing, and you wouldn't want to be in the real thing because it would not then be playing a computer game at all.
 
Not any games reflect the historical with absolute accuracy, as that is impossible to do in any simulation. You can get historically close, but not perfect. Somethings have to be altered and even disregarded for flow of game play and to have a chance at winning the game playing any side in the game.
 
Chris
 

ORIGINAL: christof139
No games reflect the historical with absolute accuracy, as that is impossible to do in any simulation. You can get historically close, but not perfect.

Yes, of course, that's all we can hope to do. A game is considerable simplification of reality. It approximates. We just look for a reasonable and plausible approximation.

ORIGINAL: christof139
Some things have to be altered and even disregarded for flow of game play and to have a chance at winning the game playing any side in the game.

I don't think anything needs to be altered in the American Civil War to give both sides a chance of winning. The North won, so it obviously had a chance. As for the South, if it had no chance then what was Lincoln worrying about? I think it had enough chance to make a decent game, even though it was less than a 50% chance.

ORIGINAL: hotdog433

but they are not being put in the same situation as you suggest and i will say that i love the game the way it is i dont see the need to change it as you can set your own challenge of what you want to happen

Actually, what YOU are saying is "I like fried worms on toast..., so it should be shoved down everybody's throat whether they like it or not! They can add salt and pepper to taste."

What the rest of us are saying is give us a correctly stocked kitchen and let us decide what we want from there. Or at least put the possibility of something else on the menu.

do you still play the game? if you do it doesnt sound like you are enjoying it you want a harder challenge maybe you should try something else as just about every post i have seen of yours you are whinging about something that someone has said all i have done is voice an opinion and you didnt like it thats fine
 
also i dont think i would include with you the majority of people who are playing the game thats your opinion you dont like it as it is not accurate enough for you then thats fine

I have had some disagreements with Mike but I will be the first to defend him here.  hotdog433 you are confusing whinning with pure blunt honesty.  If you are so happy with this  game then go play it.  why are you on here trying to prevent us from making FOF a better game?  You sound like a politician, when your argument gets smoked, like Mike just smoked yours, you resort to personal attacks.
 
 

Actually, I sense some hostility on both sides. I don't think calling hot dog's argument "fried worms" is just blunt honesty. When you talk about a "fully stocked kitchen" and a "menu" to choose from, what is that if not the large array of options we provided, which many seem to simply ignore? A whole lot of energy has been spent criticizing the defaults without using all the tools provided to adjust them.

I'd be happy to see these attempts to make the game better give more consideration to the responses we've already posted as far as our desire to address any reported issues.

Regards,

- Erik