Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Queeg
What would you propose for an "historically accurate" starting scenario? Not every last nut and bolt, but in general, what needs to be changed and to what degree? How would you handle the numbers? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I just want to see it there is a consensus.

I would ask the same. Why don't you guys start a separate thread aimed at "Historical Scenario Corrections" and bring to our attention there _scenario issues_ rather than game or rule related things that bother you. I can guarantee the design team will see your comments.

Regards,

- Erik

Done

What start date? I would guess that the people interested in history would rather see an earlier start date than november. Personally I'd like to see it start in late april but I don't think the game can model that well since several states had not yet joined the confederacy. It's also easier to find numbers for a july start at least with what reference materials I have at the moment.

If you start the game before the last four states joined the Confederacy, I suppose there must be a possibility that they wouldn't join, in which case it wouldn't be much of a game.

Considered as a wargame, I think the ACW started in July 1861. Before that, you could perhaps make an interesting multiplayer political game out of the situation (one player per state?), but it would be a very different sort of game. Also, hindsight would have a huge effect on it. A lot of real Southerners at the time (though not all of them) seem to have been greatly overconfident about their prospects in war. Surely no modern player would share that attitude.

Chris,

Well, if you're fairly happy with the July, 1861 scenario then I'd say wait on that as an improved version is already in testing. The comments you posted in another thread indicated that you thought a number of things in the November 1861 scenario needed adjusting, so I'd focus comments on that first.

Regards,

- Erik

July 1861 makes the most sense to me.

Yes, one should wait until all States have left the Union that did historically, and of course you need to have passed the trigger point for when Lincoln called up troops. July works fine.

July 1861 is good, and W. Amos' mod is nice because the genrals start in both the east and West.
 
Queeg, is your avatar a Texian trooper?? Seems like there may be a Lone Star or two on his hat. that is a great pic, and I may copy it to use the face and hat for a leader box in a TalonSoft game.
 
Chris(tof139)
 
 

ORIGINAL: christof139

Queeg, is your avatar a Texian trooper?? Seems like there may be a Lone Star or two on his hat. that is a great pic, and I may copy it to use the face and hat for a leader box in a TalonSoft game.

I honestly don't know. Just found him on the internet and liked him.

Oh. That's a great pic!! Chris

Ok, any specific comments on scenario corrections for the standard November, 1861 scenario? Anyone?

I guess it must be perfect. [;)]

Haven't played Nov. '61 yet, and won't for sometime as I am deeply embroiled now in the Juli '61 scenario, so, beats me, I don't know.

I like the earlier start for the ACW etc. when I am in 'the whole thing' mode of desire in playing. Nov. '61 is also a good start time.

Ha ha ha!!! Yeah, I don't believe anyone or anything has or ever will be perfect. [;)]

Chris

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok, any specific comments on scenario corrections for the standard November, 1861 scenario? Anyone?

I guess it must be perfect. [;)]

Erik,

I only played that scenario once or twice before concentrating on the July 61 scenario.

As I recall, my largest area of discomfort was that the game mechanics did not allow a player who started in July 1861 to build the same forces that were present in the Nov 1861 scenario. In other words, I was unable to find a path from A to B, where A is the July 1861 scenario starting forces and B is the November 1861 scenario starting forces.

Regards,
Feltan

Guys, remember that the July campaign was a Mod that was added to the game, the Standard campaign is what was tested and tried to be balanced for play

the early start date does not really work too well with the game system as is

the low morale and stuff was there to reflex on what had happened to the Union earlier on and then be able to start to be rebuilt over the winter, so that by spring of 62, it is close to a new army

in July, you have the poor morale already in place, before the defeat happened
and have the rest of the summer and fell to live with it

I never played the July campaign until after the game was released, I was able to take out the whole Union Army before 62 came (they mustered and built, so there were some troops around for 62, but nothing that could stand in the way of anything I wanted to do)

I think alot of the complaints about how strong the CSA is in the game is coming from people are playing the July campaign and not the standard

(the Standard game takes me into late 63, early 64 before I can win the game, in the July, I normally win in 62)

ORIGINAL: Feltan
As I recall, my largest area of discomfort was that the game mechanics did not allow a player who started in July 1861 to build the same forces that were present in the Nov 1861 scenario. In other words, I was unable to find a path from A to B, where A is the July 1861 scenario starting forces and B is the November 1861 scenario starting forces.

Have you tried my historical test settings yet?

To answer Queeg's original question, I would like to see a historical 1861 scenario that gives the USA a 3-1 adv in money, labor, iron and a 1-1 in horses.  I would like the USA to have at least a 4 or 5-1 adv in each research cat.  I would like a small fort in Fred, just to allow CSA some time to adjust, and maybe a small fort above memphis.
 
Many of the things that are said to be adjusted in the upcoming patch sounds great to me.  The one thing I would love to see but I know it would prob be a huge programming change.  If camps deposited 500 or so men, per turn in a force pool that the player could use to either form new brigades or reinforce existing.
 
I also want to be able to turn off USA emancipation.  I play with Diplomacy off and the AI will still amancipate wich I do not like.
 
I know the question was historical, I do not know as some do the exact number ingots the USA and CSA produced each day, however I do know the USA had close to a 3-1 adv or more in almost every economic area.  I feel as though the USA advantages are not reflected in this game making it way to easy for the CSA.

From the numbers I've seen, the US advantage varied from 1:1 up to 3:1, depending on the area of the economy. I thought in most areas it was closer to 2:1 than 3:1, but I'm not an expert on this, nor was I the researcher for FoF. However, I think making a more historical scenario in terms of economic balance available does make sense, though the current Power settings can largely accomplish what you want already.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

From the numbers I've seen, the US advantage varied from 1:1 up to 3:1, depending on the area of the economy. I thought in most areas it was closer to 2:1 than 3:1, but I'm not an expert on this, nor was I the researcher for FoF. However, I think making a more historical scenario in terms of economic balance available does make sense, though the current Power settings can largely accomplish what you want already.

The state of New York manufactured more goods than the entire confederacy. Pennsylvania too, I believe. Of course this shouldn't translate into the same ratio in the game. The North maintained a much higher standard of living than the south and the south did well in using what little they had but it's much higher than 3 to 1. Take a look at the 1860 census. http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1860.htm

Erik as I have said before the (-) power settings effects rail and research. To get the economy where I want it I end up with negative wpns, rail and research. I have found it not a good way to balance out the economic diffs. Why not start historic and then modify with power to suit the player.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok, any specific comments on scenario corrections for the standard November, 1861 scenario? Anyone?

I guess it must be perfect. [;)]

Ditch the four Union Armies. Maybe 2, 1 in the East, 1 in the West.

Most problems with balance are systemic however, not scenario specific. You could try to cover them up by playing with the options, but that is just band aids to counter the issue, rather than an actual resolution.

I am resigned to waiting for the patch, in the hopes that enough changes will have been made to make the game (more) playable.

I guess someone needs to ammend the morale settings in the July 61 mods to reflect the pre-Manassas levels (before they went skedaddleing back to DC).

Skedaddle- to run away; scram; leave in a hurry; escape.