Confederate numbers are still way out of whack. Look, I like a-historical "What-If's" as well as the next history buff, but in most, if not all games I play as the Union, the confederates have two 100K armies at the end of 1861, and a 150K army at the end of 1862 is pretty much unjustifiable, let alone two. Thats just bad programming. When I play the confederacy, I am bankrupting myself in so many other places, suffering instability from impressment's, pissing off governors left and right, but my computer opponent does not appear to suffer these problems. Meanwhile, when I play as the Union, the Rebs have two field armies with at least 120K men, not to mention fully garrisoned cities, forts, and a few odd corps/divisions running around the coast, and I am struggling to me them even up without hurting myself.
Seaborne Invasions by the Union are off as well. Historically, they conducted quite a few successful ones, but the way the game currently stands, any invasion is doomed to slow death because most, if not all of the invasions sites will not be next to union controlled territory. Given US domination of the seas, you think seaborne supply would be available buy no. I take a Union Army to New Orleans, siege the fort, win; siege the city win; and watch the next sixth months as the troops I have there starve to death because they can;t get any supplies? Please.
Why does a Union unit built anytime after mid 1862 still show up with Improvised Weapons? They should be arriving with Springfields, unless theres a compelling historical reason for them not to.
To frustrated to type more...
Thresh
Some things still bugging me
Moderator: Gil R.
RE: Some things still bugging me
The AI receives an economic bonus according to difficulty level -- if you play on harder levels, the AI will have larger armies, perhaps much larger than historical. If you don't want the AI to have an economic bonus, you can play on the low levels. Giving AI players an economic or other sort of material bonus based on difficulty levels is a very standard thing to do in this sort of game -- our largest bonus is actually smaller than the bonuses given in such games as Civilization IV or the old Talonsoft Battleground games (much smaller than in Civilization IV, a type of AI that many players of Crown of Glory suggested that we emulate). The AI does use conscription/muster quite a bit, but it chooses where to make these economic decisions in a way that minimizes its chance of unrest. On levels without bonuses, the AI shouldn't have much larger armies than the CSA had historically (if you're not playing with the greater population option on, that is). The levels with bonuses are meant to keep the game challenging for players who have mastered the normal levels of play -- we'd rather have some players complain about AI bonuses for difficulty levels than have players complain that the game is too easy and not challenging.
c.f. Forge of Freedom Game Manual, page 161:
It's quite possible to keep an amphibious invasion force supplied by Fleet Supply, but it does require you to keep an eye on your military group's Logistical rating, the forage value of the province your troops are in, the weapons that the troops carry, and so forth. If it were easy to get fleet (or any other type of) supply without having to keep track of these factors, then we might as well have excluded these factors from the game as they would have been meaningless to game play. If players find the supply rules to be too much needless micromanagement, they can easily turn them off as a game option.
You can buy Springfields for your new Union troops if you choose -- the game does not force you into equipping your new units with Springfields even though that's what they had historically. Forge of Freedom is a game and it allows you to make some decisions to do things differently than were done historically. This is a very standard practice in these types of games -- in general we find that most players prefer to have greater control over things than to be forced to do things the way they were done historically, though occasionally we do find some players (such as you) who complain that the game doesn't force you to do things a certain way. We have found, however, by-and-large, that the majority of players seem to prefer having greater control. If you don't like the firearm rules, you can turn them off and all units will be equipped with Springfields through the whole game. Other major campaign-level Civil War games exist that don't differentiate between the weapons that their units have, and if you play Forge of Freedom with the weapons rules turned off, then it will operate much like these other types of games.
Given US domination of the seas, you think seaborne supply would be available buy no.
c.f. Forge of Freedom Game Manual, page 161:
• Fleet Supply: A brigade is in Fleet Supply if it is in neither Rail Supply nor Land
Supply, but is in a province adjacent to a friendly non-empty fleet. It receives a
50% penalty to all other sources of re-supply (listed below), and its base level of
re-supply is 0 Supply.
It's quite possible to keep an amphibious invasion force supplied by Fleet Supply, but it does require you to keep an eye on your military group's Logistical rating, the forage value of the province your troops are in, the weapons that the troops carry, and so forth. If it were easy to get fleet (or any other type of) supply without having to keep track of these factors, then we might as well have excluded these factors from the game as they would have been meaningless to game play. If players find the supply rules to be too much needless micromanagement, they can easily turn them off as a game option.
You can buy Springfields for your new Union troops if you choose -- the game does not force you into equipping your new units with Springfields even though that's what they had historically. Forge of Freedom is a game and it allows you to make some decisions to do things differently than were done historically. This is a very standard practice in these types of games -- in general we find that most players prefer to have greater control over things than to be forced to do things the way they were done historically, though occasionally we do find some players (such as you) who complain that the game doesn't force you to do things a certain way. We have found, however, by-and-large, that the majority of players seem to prefer having greater control. If you don't like the firearm rules, you can turn them off and all units will be equipped with Springfields through the whole game. Other major campaign-level Civil War games exist that don't differentiate between the weapons that their units have, and if you play Forge of Freedom with the weapons rules turned off, then it will operate much like these other types of games.
RE: Some things still bugging me
ORIGINAL: ericbabe
The AI receives an economic bonus according to difficulty level -- if you play on harder levels, the AI will have larger armies, perhaps much larger than historical. If you don't want the AI to have an economic bonus, you can play on the low levels.
I am playing at First Sergeant level, and manpower wise am being consistently outbuilt and outproduced. I am pretty sure it's me not fully understanding the mechanics of it all, but as an example, to build a brand new infantry unit of 3K men costs me 2 population, which I may or may not recover when the population "boom" is effected.
Now, I build a ton of camps, a few upgrades, and I can get 50K troops a month as reinforcements, or at least to my train of thinking, 16.6 population points a turn. In effect, every four months I am emptying New York of its population, and without paying a penalty. And the south it's even worse, as they have a smaller population but are able to apparently support armies as big as, if not bigger, than mine.
Now, I haven't been hacked off enough to go to the starting population of bboth the CSA and the Union, but I suspect that if I were, I would find it would be quite possible, say around 1863, that if all one built were camps, and you had the invalid corps upgrade, you could get the entire population of your country in a years worth of reinforcements.
Giving AI players an economic or other sort of material bonus based on difficulty levels is a very standard thing to do in this sort of game -- our largest bonus is actually smaller than the bonuses given in such games as Civilization IV or the old Talonsoft Battleground games (much smaller than in Civilization IV, a type of AI that many players of Crown of Glory suggested that we emulate). The AI does use conscription/muster quite a bit, but it chooses where to make these economic decisions in a way that minimizes its chance of unrest.
It must be doing something right, AFAIK every time I muster in a province with less than a 20% chance it revolts for "X" turns...must be just my bad luck....
On levels without bonuses, the AI shouldn't have much larger armies than the CSA had historically (if you're not playing with the greater population option on, that is).
Demonstrably untrue. In a game I am playing as the Union, in June if 1862 Jackson had 150K men in the West, and Stuart had 110K men in the East, and there were still enough divisions to go around sieging Forts Monroe and Pickens, and bottle up my attempted amphibious Invasion of Mobile. Not to mention every visible Confederate town had at least one garrison factor in it, and all of it's forts were garrisoned as well.
Where is it getting the manpower from?
It's quite possible to keep an amphibious invasion force supplied by Fleet Supply, but it does require you to keep an eye on your military group's Logistical rating, the forage value of the province your troops are in, the weapons that the troops carry, and so forth. If it were easy to get fleet (or any other type of) supply without having to keep track of these factors, then we might as well have excluded these factors from the game as they would have been meaningless to game play. If players find the supply rules to be too much needless micromanagement, they can easily turn them off as a game option.
I'll have to pay closer attentention to that when I try my next attempt...
You can buy Springfields for your new Union troops if you choose -- the game does not force you into equipping your new units with Springfields even though that's what they had historically.
OK, the contrarian in me wants to know why this is. If they were historically equipped with Springfields, then they should start with Springfields. As a Union player I am already spending Iron and labor in an effort to build up my weapons, now I have to spend that income on something by all rights my units should already have.
As for the game not forcing me to buy Springfields, I'd submit that 's debatable as well. I seem to find twhen fighting detailed battles I do a better job of inflicting casualties when I have something more than just improvised weapons. YMMV.
Forge of Freedom is a game and it allows you to make some decisions to do things differently than were done historically. This is a very standard practice in these types of games -- in general we find that most players prefer to have greater control over things than to be forced to do things the way they were done historically, though occasionally we do find some players (such as you) who complain that the game doesn't force you to do things a certain way.
Don't get me wrong, I like the ability to make a lot of the choices, I like a lot of the micromanagement details that the game can allow you. I think myself and many others see this game as an attempt to do better than what historically happened.
But, speaking for myself, there has to be a line drawn somewheres.
If a Union troop historically came out of the training camp with a Springfield, then a unit of Union Infantry produced (but not necessarily impressed) in the game should have a Springfield.
Historically the South had manpower troubles. I have yet to see them suffer that in this game.
I like a lot of things about FoF, but there are a few things I find jarring enough to put me off it from time to time....
Thresh
RE: Some things still bugging me
One thing I see here is that you must be conscripting instead of mustering. Mustering does not send provinces into revolt.
As for your Springfield fixation [:D], you can buy the troops whatever's available but I'm not sure why you expect that they would just happen to have a Springfield at home when they sign up.
Try playing July '61 on Sergeant with normal population and you will not see what you are describing. Better yet, play a "hotseat" game with both players controlled by you. You will quickly realise the options available to both sides. I can emulate the CSA build up that you describe only at horrendous cost to my economy and research.
As for your Springfield fixation [:D], you can buy the troops whatever's available but I'm not sure why you expect that they would just happen to have a Springfield at home when they sign up.
Try playing July '61 on Sergeant with normal population and you will not see what you are describing. Better yet, play a "hotseat" game with both players controlled by you. You will quickly realise the options available to both sides. I can emulate the CSA build up that you describe only at horrendous cost to my economy and research.
RE: Some things still bugging me
ORIGINAL: Mr. Yuck
One thing I see here is that you must be conscripting instead of mustering. Mustering does not send provinces into revolt.
I try to never ever conscript. What bothers me is that it's one of the ways I know the computer is keeping confederate manpower up, but I can count on one hands the number of confederate provinces I have seen in revolt in 20 plus games as a Union player.
As for your Springfield fixation [:D], you can buy the troops whatever's available but I'm not sure why you expect that they would just happen to have a Springfield at home when they sign up.
Because thats what they were issued at camp. As a soldier, when volunteered or drafted, you reported to a camp. You underwent training, received a couple of uniforms, and a Springfield rifle. And if you were part of a regiment raised and equipped by someone, more often than not, you got a Springfield rifle. It was the most produced weapon of the Civil War.
And frankly, after a certain point in time, around mid 1862, I shouldn't have to pay to get it, it should be the default weapon.
Yet when the computer does that, it does not seem to suffer any ill effects.Try playing July '61 on Sergeant with normal population and you will not see what you are describing. Better yet, play a "hotseat" game with both players controlled by you. You will quickly realise the options available to both sides. I can emulate the CSA build up that you describe only at horrendous cost to my economy and research.
Go figure...
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 3:40 am
RE: Some things still bugging me
re:Springfield rifles
The current scenarios start in 1861 and the men as they come out of production (not camps) basically have nothing but adhoc weapons, until you buy them something else to upgrade their weapons. I guess the developers could have decided to give them Springfield rifles, but the way they implemented the production process allows you to control whether you want them to have Springfields, Muskets, or any other Rifle weapon that you desire. Your choice. If they had implemented a default of Springfield as a weapon, then the cost of the unit would have been adjusted higher in game terms leaving gamers who might not want Springfields to have to pay twice in order to re-equip a new unit. So for flexibility, just buy what you want the units to have when produced.
Regarding camps in the game. They are replacement troops that go into existing units (brigades) and will therefore receive the weapon assigned to the brigades that are being added to, i.e. you don't buy them weapons.
Later scenarios being designed will of course reflect the newer weapons in the Armies being designed into the scenario, depending on the starting year of that scenario
You've GOT to hold them back!
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 3:40 am
RE: Some things still bugging me
re: musters
Try to muster primarily in states when their governors "Support Volunteer Musters". The troops resulting from such musters will be of higher quality then normal muster and conscripted units, and as "Mr. Yuck" states, you won't cause unrest mustering instead of conscripting. Matter of fact, as Union player, I have never conscripted, only mustered, but the choice is there.
Try to muster primarily in states when their governors "Support Volunteer Musters". The troops resulting from such musters will be of higher quality then normal muster and conscripted units, and as "Mr. Yuck" states, you won't cause unrest mustering instead of conscripting. Matter of fact, as Union player, I have never conscripted, only mustered, but the choice is there.
You've GOT to hold them back!
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 3:40 am
RE: Some things still bugging me
re: Confederate troop numbers
At the moment, the only way to deal with this is immediate and aggresive battles to try to "attrit" the CSA armies, especially in HW battles, strive to surround and cause "surrenders" of individual CSA brigades, which is hard to do the first year or so, but at least "attrit" them as much as possible. Keep an eye on the Will to Fight numbers at the top of the screen and any battles where you see the opposing side getting close to 0. Be ready to change your units to "column" to try to isolate retreating enemy units when they go into wholesale retreat. Doing so, eliminates the unit entirely and prevents their regeneration by replacements from the enemy camps. This is really difficult to implement in QC as surrender is not so easily affected directly by the player himself.
edit: HW is short for Detailed Battles, QC is short for Quick Combat
At the moment, the only way to deal with this is immediate and aggresive battles to try to "attrit" the CSA armies, especially in HW battles, strive to surround and cause "surrenders" of individual CSA brigades, which is hard to do the first year or so, but at least "attrit" them as much as possible. Keep an eye on the Will to Fight numbers at the top of the screen and any battles where you see the opposing side getting close to 0. Be ready to change your units to "column" to try to isolate retreating enemy units when they go into wholesale retreat. Doing so, eliminates the unit entirely and prevents their regeneration by replacements from the enemy camps. This is really difficult to implement in QC as surrender is not so easily affected directly by the player himself.
edit: HW is short for Detailed Battles, QC is short for Quick Combat
You've GOT to hold them back!
RE: Some things still bugging me
ORIGINAL: Gray_Lensman
re: musters
Try to muster primarily in states when their governors "Support Volunteer Musters". The troops resulting from such musters will be of higher quality then normal muster and conscripted units, and as "Mr. Yuck" states, you won't cause unrest mustering instead of conscripting. Matter of fact, as Union player, I have never conscripted, only mustered, but the choice is there.
Hmm. I'd like to see an ability for the player to set a default weapons option for mustering/producing units. It would certainly save time later going through the unit lists and finding all the new units in order to upgrade them one by one.
Don't mind me though, I'm a noob with FoF.
-
General Quarters
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:08 pm
RE: Some things still bugging me
There is an option that provides default weapons for your units -- I think, Springfields. Getting to know and use the options allows you to make the game just the way you like.
RE: Some things still bugging me
Interesting idea but a default to arm with a specific weapon (above improvised) would commit the funds for all such new units on arrival and that may not always be possible or desirable given other commitments.
Edit: GQ: Agreed there is the option to not have any weapon choice/purchases in which case infantry get Springfields.
Edit: GQ: Agreed there is the option to not have any weapon choice/purchases in which case infantry get Springfields.
RE: Some things still bugging me
ORIGINAL: General Quarters
There is an option that provides default weapons for your units -- I think, Springfields. Getting to know and use the options allows you to make the game just the way you like.
Doesn't this option also disallow me to choose any other weapon type as an upgrade later?
RE: Some things still bugging me
I used to play the "Coming Fury" almost exclusively, but am playing Southern Steel a lot more.
Thresh
Thresh
ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Thresh, which scenario are you playing?
RE: Some things still bugging me
ORIGINAL: Khornish
ORIGINAL: General Quarters
There is an option that provides default weapons for your units -- I think, Springfields. Getting to know and use the options allows you to make the game just the way you like.
Doesn't this option also disallow me to choose any other weapon type as an upgrade later?
Yes, it would.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
RE: Some things still bugging me
ORIGINAL: Gil R.
ORIGINAL: Khornish
ORIGINAL: General Quarters
There is an option that provides default weapons for your units -- I think, Springfields. Getting to know and use the options allows you to make the game just the way you like.
Doesn't this option also disallow me to choose any other weapon type as an upgrade later?
Yes, it would.
But....once you upgrade your weapons technology such as Springfield to Improved Springfield doesn't that upgrade get passed along to the boys in the field?
Saratoga CV-3
One of 3 U.S. pre-war carriers to survive WWII
Awarded 7 battle stars
Torpedoed on two separate occasions
Hit by 6 bombs, holed twice, on 2-17-45
Sunk at Bikini Atoll, '46, after enduring 2nd A-Bomb test
She was a tough Lady!
One of 3 U.S. pre-war carriers to survive WWII
Awarded 7 battle stars
Torpedoed on two separate occasions
Hit by 6 bombs, holed twice, on 2-17-45
Sunk at Bikini Atoll, '46, after enduring 2nd A-Bomb test
She was a tough Lady!
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 3:40 am
RE: Some things still bugging me
To clarify things:
The option being discussed is the [] Upgrade Weapons option which is in the manual at the bottom of page 195
Quote:
Upgrade Weapons [font=myriad,myriad]– Turning this option on permits a player to upgrade weapons, build arsenals, accrue Gun resources, and units may drop their weapons during retreat. [/font]
[font=myriad,myriad][/font]
[font=myriad,myriad]<intentional spacing>[/font]
[font=myriad,myriad]Leaving it off prevents a player from selecting weapons for units. All infantry receive Springfield Rifles, all cavalry receive Burnside Carbines, all artillery receive 6-pdr cannon, all ships receive Brooke Rifles. Nations cannot build arsenals, and do not accrue Gun resources. No unit drops its weapons during retreat.[/font]
[font=myriad,myriad][/font]
[font=myriad,myriad]What this means is that in order to default to Springfield Rifles, Burnside Carbines, etc. you have to turn off Weapons Upgrades, this in turn means that no upgrades will get passed along to the boys in the field, because you have selected "No" to Weapons Upgrades. This is assuming no changes have been made in the patches and the original manual is correct. Even with Upgrade Weapons selected you still have to selectively give the weapons upgrades to the boys in the field. The game was designed that way to allow players to choose which weapons upgrades to apply to which "deserving" units. Admitedly, some micromanagement is involved.[/font]
The option being discussed is the [] Upgrade Weapons option which is in the manual at the bottom of page 195
Quote:
Upgrade Weapons [font=myriad,myriad]– Turning this option on permits a player to upgrade weapons, build arsenals, accrue Gun resources, and units may drop their weapons during retreat. [/font]
[font=myriad,myriad][/font]
[font=myriad,myriad]<intentional spacing>[/font]
[font=myriad,myriad]Leaving it off prevents a player from selecting weapons for units. All infantry receive Springfield Rifles, all cavalry receive Burnside Carbines, all artillery receive 6-pdr cannon, all ships receive Brooke Rifles. Nations cannot build arsenals, and do not accrue Gun resources. No unit drops its weapons during retreat.[/font]
[font=myriad,myriad][/font]
[font=myriad,myriad]What this means is that in order to default to Springfield Rifles, Burnside Carbines, etc. you have to turn off Weapons Upgrades, this in turn means that no upgrades will get passed along to the boys in the field, because you have selected "No" to Weapons Upgrades. This is assuming no changes have been made in the patches and the original manual is correct. Even with Upgrade Weapons selected you still have to selectively give the weapons upgrades to the boys in the field. The game was designed that way to allow players to choose which weapons upgrades to apply to which "deserving" units. Admitedly, some micromanagement is involved.[/font]
You've GOT to hold them back!
RE: Some things still bugging me
I understand we're talking about setting default weapons v. having free choice to hand out weapon types for units as we see fit--but don't the game options allow for a happy middle ground?
In a straight intermediate game the default setting has research upgrades toggled on and upgrade weapons is toggled off. So in said intermediate game if I invest in weaponry technology and eventually receive something like the improved Springfield what does this mean?
1. Nothing, I wasted my research points and shouldn't be investing in weapons tech at the intermediate setting.
2. Only units created after the tech upgrade occurs get the improved Springfield.
3. All appropriate existing units in the field and future units now get the improved Springfield.
4. None of the above.
Help!
In a straight intermediate game the default setting has research upgrades toggled on and upgrade weapons is toggled off. So in said intermediate game if I invest in weaponry technology and eventually receive something like the improved Springfield what does this mean?
1. Nothing, I wasted my research points and shouldn't be investing in weapons tech at the intermediate setting.
2. Only units created after the tech upgrade occurs get the improved Springfield.
3. All appropriate existing units in the field and future units now get the improved Springfield.
4. None of the above.
Help!
Saratoga CV-3
One of 3 U.S. pre-war carriers to survive WWII
Awarded 7 battle stars
Torpedoed on two separate occasions
Hit by 6 bombs, holed twice, on 2-17-45
Sunk at Bikini Atoll, '46, after enduring 2nd A-Bomb test
She was a tough Lady!
One of 3 U.S. pre-war carriers to survive WWII
Awarded 7 battle stars
Torpedoed on two separate occasions
Hit by 6 bombs, holed twice, on 2-17-45
Sunk at Bikini Atoll, '46, after enduring 2nd A-Bomb test
She was a tough Lady!
RE: Some things still bugging me
If you have Research turned ON and Weapons Upgrades turned OFF, the game shouldn't permit you to build (or start with) any Armory or Arsenal buildings, viz. the things required for Guns and Weapons Research.
RE: Some things still bugging me
Greetings one and all:
Actually, I find myself in complete sympathy with what Thresh is saying and at the same time I'm in total agreement with the designers. How can this be?
After having played simulations/wargames for so many years, I've realized it all seems to come down to what you want and expect from games like this, and what you want and expect from this particular game.
In a nutshell, I feel that the game's designers haven't really done their jobs unless the game kicks my fanny thoroughly, continuously, and for a very long period of time. I want a game like this to thoroughly humiliate me, especially during the initial familiarity period (say, at least six months to a year of almost continuous play). I want to be so completely embarassed, so completely demoralized by being beaten by the designer's concepts and knowledge-base (being applied upon my empty melon by an absolutely merciless AI), that I despair of ever winning, of ever figuring it out, of ever getting rid of this horrible tightness in my chest that tells me I am dumb, incompetent, brain-dead, hopeless. I've come a long way from blaming my failures on the game itself, and I don't at all mean this as a slam on this who do. I'll explain more on this in a bit.
I've been playing wargames like these since before my voice broke. I had rejected "beer and pretzels" games on principle even before I HAD my first beer.
I've been at it long enough to have begun to see a pattern in the now decades-long struggle of "wargames versus Odox".
First off, I have to come to grips as fully as I can with exactly what it is I'm facing here. An adequate game is one which is well-designed of course; it's stable, the applications of the rules are consistent, and the concepts make sense. But I find games like these quickly become predictable, and not long after that, boring. Probably half the wargames ever made fall into this category; in all likelihood it's creators wanted to make something easily digestible and fair. Whatever innovations they might have brought to the game eventually come across not as brilliant, but merely cute. These annoy me and are quickly discarded.
Better wargames have depth, they are unpredictable, they are clever. But even these are eventually deconstructed and understood, and I have just as often shaken my head at my own blindness to the rather obvious nature of the 'cleverness' thus revealed, as felt any real respect and admiration for the designers of the thing.
I'll tell you what I look for in a wargame. I'll tell you what makes my palms sweat and my heart palpitate and my eyes bug out of their sockets: a game make by the most twisted, diabolical, inhuman genuises imaginable. No, I'm not kidding. I want somebody to put a game together that is so impossible, so conceptually lofty, and so technically vast that my hand trembles when I reach for the mouse and I become aware I'm holding my breath. I WANT to feel like I'm probably going to be getting into some very, very serious trouble very, very quickly.
Which is why I stop faulting the design or the designers. Am I such a weak player that I cannot learn to compensate for some oddity I find in the gameplay? Do I possess such a poor mind that I cannot discover some way to turn this anomaly against my opponent? Do I get up in disgust when some outcome seems unreasonable to me and disappoints me? NO - this is life, this is death even; this is WAR. Men crap their drawers and run away blindly without call. Trusted subordinates disappoint. Beloved leaders are suddenly dead. The enemy whom your scouts assured you are of low morale and small number suddenly crash into you unexpectedly with the ferocity of Huns in numbers as overwhelming as the Communist Chinese.
So!!! The creators of this wargame are starting to impress me. I begin to fathom that I am up against extremely gifted and knowledgeable historians here; I also see that there are those that are involved that possess an excellent grasp of the complexity and near-limitless interplay that many important factors can bring to the game. And I also have a sense of that inhuman intelligence too; and with it the unsettling knowledge that all my heart, all my meticulous planning and preparation, all my courage and trickery may not be enough to beat this thing. In all probability I won't even come close.
So I see the pattern unfolding once again; me suffering unspeakable and humiliating defeats for what seems an agonizingly long period of time. I suffer such defeats that in embarassment I'll never mention to a living soul.
Happily, even a hardhead like me begins to learn a thing or two from his mistakes. I have long ago accepted that it is my lot in life seemingly to have to learn everything the hard way.
But learn I do; over months and even years my wardesk becomes littered with charts and tables and post-it notes detailing the hard lessons I've suffered to learn or the crackpot theories I've tried. Yet a couple of things stick, a couple of things work, and an economic or political policy or two actually prevents my defeat from becoming a total rout. I am elated with a fool's joy!
And even more months and years pass, practicing, refining, experimenting...and I begin to see dimly at first whole new understandings of many of the processes and interactions which used to baffle me. More numbers are crunched, more calculations made, and things begin to make a little more sense; and I, a normal man in most respects, begin to grasp the scope of the technical historian's almost microcosmic, almost siliconic concepts. I can from here at least see how truly brilliant the game's designers had been, from what pinnacle these genuises had mapped it from, and how high up they had attempted the bar to be placed. I'm still getting my butt handed to me on a regular basis of course. I'm still a long way from mastery but I'm feeling a little more competent at last. As far as 'mastery' is concerned, I can only chuckle ruefully to myself. But I play on.
Years ago at a national tournament for such things, I remember one particularly cocky young man that bested even the greybeards and gurus at the game. The more victories he won the louder and cockier he became, and the more did he attract a larger and larger crowd, until finally he announced rather brashly that the winner of the tournament seemed self-evident to him. Frankly, he'd begun to grate on me. I admit I was a bit jealous too; he certainly had more skill that I did. But I just hated ungracious winners.
I mentioned it may in fact be that he'd won the contest for the weekend, but I didn't see where he'd played Biggs yet, and did he plan to? Biggs was the head judge for the tournament, and had been given that honor for the simple reason that no one had ever beaten him. I knew I was putting Biggs on the spot, but I REALLY hated that kid.
Biggs was a modest man, and he just shrugged his shoulders and began setting up the board.
I'll never forget what happened next. Our bragging self-declared champion had his clock cleaned in what I can only describe as a lesson in masterful and almost effortless finesse. Biggs had shown that boy an example of Full Spectrum Dominance in a way that seemed almost casual. It was obvious that Biggs was way, way down the road from the rest of us in the way he could play that game. It was enough to make the rest of us feel like complete beginners all over again.
Concerning FoF, my notes and conclusions are still pretty raw yet. It's only been five months since I've had the game, and I shudder to think of actually attempting a match with anybody, this year or even next. But I want to point out, as I mentioned earlier, that as perturbed as I get as I try and plumb the depths of this game, so am I also delighted with it. It's obvious this will be no easy nut to crack.
And it becomes like so many other things in life; we are inspired to become better although we are clumsy at first, pointed concentration over time brings at least some awareness of improvement, further determination can reward us with even more skill, perhaps even a measure of competence. It's good to remember that mastery too is not without it's unpleasant surprises. But for me it's all about the achievement of a breadth of comprehension, of an almost gifted, transcendent understanding of the game, where at any time I can serenely position myself across from my opponent and say, "My enemy, do your worst". I can only laugh when faced with my present bumbling ways and admit such a time is far, far in the future (which makes me deeply disgruntled and thoroughly delighted, as you can understand).
Respectfully,
Odox
Actually, I find myself in complete sympathy with what Thresh is saying and at the same time I'm in total agreement with the designers. How can this be?
After having played simulations/wargames for so many years, I've realized it all seems to come down to what you want and expect from games like this, and what you want and expect from this particular game.
In a nutshell, I feel that the game's designers haven't really done their jobs unless the game kicks my fanny thoroughly, continuously, and for a very long period of time. I want a game like this to thoroughly humiliate me, especially during the initial familiarity period (say, at least six months to a year of almost continuous play). I want to be so completely embarassed, so completely demoralized by being beaten by the designer's concepts and knowledge-base (being applied upon my empty melon by an absolutely merciless AI), that I despair of ever winning, of ever figuring it out, of ever getting rid of this horrible tightness in my chest that tells me I am dumb, incompetent, brain-dead, hopeless. I've come a long way from blaming my failures on the game itself, and I don't at all mean this as a slam on this who do. I'll explain more on this in a bit.
I've been playing wargames like these since before my voice broke. I had rejected "beer and pretzels" games on principle even before I HAD my first beer.
I've been at it long enough to have begun to see a pattern in the now decades-long struggle of "wargames versus Odox".
First off, I have to come to grips as fully as I can with exactly what it is I'm facing here. An adequate game is one which is well-designed of course; it's stable, the applications of the rules are consistent, and the concepts make sense. But I find games like these quickly become predictable, and not long after that, boring. Probably half the wargames ever made fall into this category; in all likelihood it's creators wanted to make something easily digestible and fair. Whatever innovations they might have brought to the game eventually come across not as brilliant, but merely cute. These annoy me and are quickly discarded.
Better wargames have depth, they are unpredictable, they are clever. But even these are eventually deconstructed and understood, and I have just as often shaken my head at my own blindness to the rather obvious nature of the 'cleverness' thus revealed, as felt any real respect and admiration for the designers of the thing.
I'll tell you what I look for in a wargame. I'll tell you what makes my palms sweat and my heart palpitate and my eyes bug out of their sockets: a game make by the most twisted, diabolical, inhuman genuises imaginable. No, I'm not kidding. I want somebody to put a game together that is so impossible, so conceptually lofty, and so technically vast that my hand trembles when I reach for the mouse and I become aware I'm holding my breath. I WANT to feel like I'm probably going to be getting into some very, very serious trouble very, very quickly.
Which is why I stop faulting the design or the designers. Am I such a weak player that I cannot learn to compensate for some oddity I find in the gameplay? Do I possess such a poor mind that I cannot discover some way to turn this anomaly against my opponent? Do I get up in disgust when some outcome seems unreasonable to me and disappoints me? NO - this is life, this is death even; this is WAR. Men crap their drawers and run away blindly without call. Trusted subordinates disappoint. Beloved leaders are suddenly dead. The enemy whom your scouts assured you are of low morale and small number suddenly crash into you unexpectedly with the ferocity of Huns in numbers as overwhelming as the Communist Chinese.
So!!! The creators of this wargame are starting to impress me. I begin to fathom that I am up against extremely gifted and knowledgeable historians here; I also see that there are those that are involved that possess an excellent grasp of the complexity and near-limitless interplay that many important factors can bring to the game. And I also have a sense of that inhuman intelligence too; and with it the unsettling knowledge that all my heart, all my meticulous planning and preparation, all my courage and trickery may not be enough to beat this thing. In all probability I won't even come close.
So I see the pattern unfolding once again; me suffering unspeakable and humiliating defeats for what seems an agonizingly long period of time. I suffer such defeats that in embarassment I'll never mention to a living soul.
Happily, even a hardhead like me begins to learn a thing or two from his mistakes. I have long ago accepted that it is my lot in life seemingly to have to learn everything the hard way.
But learn I do; over months and even years my wardesk becomes littered with charts and tables and post-it notes detailing the hard lessons I've suffered to learn or the crackpot theories I've tried. Yet a couple of things stick, a couple of things work, and an economic or political policy or two actually prevents my defeat from becoming a total rout. I am elated with a fool's joy!
And even more months and years pass, practicing, refining, experimenting...and I begin to see dimly at first whole new understandings of many of the processes and interactions which used to baffle me. More numbers are crunched, more calculations made, and things begin to make a little more sense; and I, a normal man in most respects, begin to grasp the scope of the technical historian's almost microcosmic, almost siliconic concepts. I can from here at least see how truly brilliant the game's designers had been, from what pinnacle these genuises had mapped it from, and how high up they had attempted the bar to be placed. I'm still getting my butt handed to me on a regular basis of course. I'm still a long way from mastery but I'm feeling a little more competent at last. As far as 'mastery' is concerned, I can only chuckle ruefully to myself. But I play on.
Years ago at a national tournament for such things, I remember one particularly cocky young man that bested even the greybeards and gurus at the game. The more victories he won the louder and cockier he became, and the more did he attract a larger and larger crowd, until finally he announced rather brashly that the winner of the tournament seemed self-evident to him. Frankly, he'd begun to grate on me. I admit I was a bit jealous too; he certainly had more skill that I did. But I just hated ungracious winners.
I mentioned it may in fact be that he'd won the contest for the weekend, but I didn't see where he'd played Biggs yet, and did he plan to? Biggs was the head judge for the tournament, and had been given that honor for the simple reason that no one had ever beaten him. I knew I was putting Biggs on the spot, but I REALLY hated that kid.
Biggs was a modest man, and he just shrugged his shoulders and began setting up the board.
I'll never forget what happened next. Our bragging self-declared champion had his clock cleaned in what I can only describe as a lesson in masterful and almost effortless finesse. Biggs had shown that boy an example of Full Spectrum Dominance in a way that seemed almost casual. It was obvious that Biggs was way, way down the road from the rest of us in the way he could play that game. It was enough to make the rest of us feel like complete beginners all over again.
Concerning FoF, my notes and conclusions are still pretty raw yet. It's only been five months since I've had the game, and I shudder to think of actually attempting a match with anybody, this year or even next. But I want to point out, as I mentioned earlier, that as perturbed as I get as I try and plumb the depths of this game, so am I also delighted with it. It's obvious this will be no easy nut to crack.
And it becomes like so many other things in life; we are inspired to become better although we are clumsy at first, pointed concentration over time brings at least some awareness of improvement, further determination can reward us with even more skill, perhaps even a measure of competence. It's good to remember that mastery too is not without it's unpleasant surprises. But for me it's all about the achievement of a breadth of comprehension, of an almost gifted, transcendent understanding of the game, where at any time I can serenely position myself across from my opponent and say, "My enemy, do your worst". I can only laugh when faced with my present bumbling ways and admit such a time is far, far in the future (which makes me deeply disgruntled and thoroughly delighted, as you can understand).
Respectfully,
Odox