Did I Miss Something?

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I would be nice if one of those testers concerned would expose their heads above the parapet and explain exactly why the wanted them.

I've got an open mind on this one. FoF is a strategy game based on the ACW, not a simulation of it, let alone a military simulation of it. In such a game huge liberties have to be be taken in regard to other aspects of play just to keep the game manageable, playable, balanced and even codeable, which everyone accepts without batting an eyelid. Knowing the nature of the 'usual' variety of Matrix tester I can't believe they would want a blatant historical inaccuracy without a reason, such as gameplay balance for example.

Anyone brave enough to say what that reason was?

I don't remember the circumstances, but it was probably a game-balance issue, giving the CSA's navy a fighting chance.

You know, something occurs to me. If you reduce the strength of that CSA ironclads from 10 to 1 that means that when the game begins the CSA has just one of them, but gains one each time the ironclads group is in a shipyard (where "repairs" add one strength per turn). This way, it would take nine turns, or 4.5 months, before the CSA has a fleet of them equal to the Union's. You guys might want to try that and see how you like it. (1 ironclad is worthless in battle, so the CSA would not be able to use any of its ironclads in battle until they reach seven, for fear of completely losing them.)

[Mr. Z]

The northern side should have enough money to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to do it. It should not have to sacrifice the diplomatic side of things to build extra rifles.

Though note that, in the game, if the Union truly had all the money it wanted, there would be no way the Confederacy could sway any European powers to its side. We wanted and needed to make this an option; hence the Union's diplomatic powers had to be limited to a certain extent.

Secondly the diplomacy model needs a total rework.
The model as it exists now is simply dumping money into it and hoping the dice rolls come out your way.
There is no dipolmacy to it at all.

I should also note that this change was made in order to simplify the system from the one that of Crown of Glory had, in order to give the player a somewhat simpler game. We couldn't simulate everything perfectly, and this was just one of the areas we chose to simplify.

Having said all that, it would certainly be fun to develop the diplomacy side further, so we may try to consider this for a future patch--though it would probably involve some serious reworking of game mechanics, so it may not be possible.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

[

I don't remember the circumstances, but it was probably a game-balance issue, giving the CSA's navy a fighting chance. I can sympathize with trying to give the Confederates a better chance at the Land War---but "giving" them a "real navy" in place of the raiders and coast defense vessels they managed to buy or cobble together just seems overly generous. This was one of the areas in which the Union had an overwhelming advantage in every way.

You know, something occurs to me. If you reduce the strength of that CSA ironclads from 10 to 1 that means that when the game begins the CSA has just one of them, but gains one each time the ironclads group is in a shipyard (where "repairs" add one strength per turn). This way, it would take nine turns, or 4.5 months, before the CSA has a fleet of them equal to the Union's. You guys might want to try that and see how you like it. (1 ironclad is worthless in battle, so the CSA would not be able to use any of its ironclads in battle until they reach seven, for fear of completely losing them.) My solution will be to play from the "Bull Run" start date. Let BOTH sides build what they can afford over the course of the game without any imaginary "freebies"
[/quote]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I think everyone needs a, a, a, thats right-"A Group Hug"[:D] Even though I agree with you guys. They need to sink those non-historical boats.[X(]

Second the motion on the "Group Hug" [:)] and they really, really need to sink them [:D]

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

[

I don't remember the circumstances, but it was probably a game-balance issue, giving the CSA's navy a fighting chance. I can sympathize with trying to give the Confederates a better chance at the Land War---but "giving" them a "real navy" in place of the raiders and coast defense vessels they managed to buy or cobble together just seems overly generous. This was one of the areas in which the Union had an overwhelming advantage in every way.

You know, something occurs to me. If you reduce the strength of that CSA ironclads from 10 to 1 that means that when the game begins the CSA has just one of them, but gains one each time the ironclads group is in a shipyard (where "repairs" add one strength per turn). This way, it would take nine turns, or 4.5 months, before the CSA has a fleet of them equal to the Union's. You guys might want to try that and see how you like it. (1 ironclad is worthless in battle, so the CSA would not be able to use any of its ironclads in battle until they reach seven, for fear of completely losing them.) My solution will be to play from the "Bull Run" start date. Let BOTH sides build what they can afford over the course of the game without any imaginary "freebies"

Is your caps lock button wired to your genitals or something?.....[8|]

[/quote]

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Here's how to modify this. Go to ACWStart.txt in the data folder and open it up (preferably in Excel). Then scroll down to about the 284th line, which has the label "ironclads" and delete the SECOND row, the one with a 2 in the second column. Throughout the game, USA is country 1, CSA is country 2. If you just expunge that row completely, those ironclads should disappear.

Sorry, no good story about why they're there. I asked Eric, and he says some of the beta-testers wanted them. Since the beta-testers represent all of you, that means you guys wanted them too.

It's a good thing the beta testers didn't want aircraft carriers.

wait til 62 rolls around

I pity them poor Frigates if they still out at sea

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Sorry, no good story about why they're there. I asked Eric, and he says some of the beta-testers wanted them. Since the beta-testers represent all of you, that means you guys wanted them too.

It's a good thing the beta testers didn't want aircraft carriers.

Great line, but this is really a significant problem, and I think a big misstep by the game creators. What is the name of this game? it is "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865". The CSA sailing around with a whole fleet of ocean going ironclads in November 1861 might be "fun", but it has no connection with the American Civil War. Perhaps truth in advertising might call for the game to be called "Forge of Freedom: Beta Testers Flights of Fancy". In AU Tiger's thread called Epiphany about the level of accuracy in the game, I remember the outcome as tending toward the conclusion that it's ok for the game creators to leave out what they wish for simplicity sake, but what they chose to put in should be accurate. To see an intentional mistake like this built into a game with a 200 page manual is frustrating. I too would like to see some of the beta testers step out and argue for why this choice was the right one.

Not that I am giving up on the game by any means. Personally, since my personality type forbids me from playing anything less than the most advanced version, and from playing tutorials, and from sitting down and reading the manual properly, I am still working myself up the learning curve slowly [:)] Hopefully by the time the first patch comes out fixing the fort/seige CTD problem, I will be ready for some email or direct competition, then we'll see how fun this game is.

Question, where is this Whole Fleet of Ironclads coming from ?

and why are they seen as Ocean going ships ?, no ship in the game can enter the Ocean, everything in the game is Coastal

[Graycompany]

Isnt there an option to disband? Could not a player just disband those fleets when playing PBEM or either side?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

Isnt there an option to disband? Could not a player just disband those fleets when playing PBEM or either side?

From Gil's earlier post.... Here's how to modify this. Go to ACWStart.txt in the data folder and open it up (preferably in Excel). Then scroll down to about the 284th line, which has the label "ironclads" and delete the SECOND row, the one with a 2 in the second column. Throughout the game, USA is country 1, CSA is country 2. If you just expunge that row completely, those ironclads should disappear. Best choice is to get rid of them for both sides---or use the July start.

[lvaces]

Question, where is this Whole Fleet of Ironclads coming from ?

and why are they seen as Ocean going ships ?, no ship in the game can enter the Ocean, everything in the game is Coastal

Hard Sarge - The reference to a fleet I took from earlier postings and from my own early experience with the game.  Your question has made me go back and rerun the game and it looks like I was .... Oh, the word I hate most of all to say, wrong.  My inexperience was causing me to misread additional normal ships as ironclads.  If I am seeing things right now, then I would say the problem is still there, but significantly smaller than my post indicated (one ship as opposed to a fleet).  For this I am glad.  For penance, I promise my next 3 posts will be positive.    

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Question, where is this Whole Fleet of Ironclads coming from ?

and why are they seen as Ocean going ships ?, no ship in the game can enter the Ocean, everything in the game is Coastal

Hard Sarge - The reference to a fleet I took from earlier postings and from my own early experience with the game. Your question has made me go back and rerun the game and it looks like I was .... Oh, the word I hate most of all to say, wrong. My inexperience was causing me to misread additional normal ships as ironclads. If I am seeing things right now, then I would say the problem is still there, but significantly smaller than my post indicated (one ship as opposed to a fleet). For this I am glad. For penance, I promise my next 3 posts will be positive.

no hassle mate, that is why I was asking, there is one Ironclad, which I also agree is wrong, if someone was getting a fleet of them at the start, then something else was wrong

I follow and understand the posts better now

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Question, where is this Whole Fleet of Ironclads coming from ?

and why are they seen as Ocean going ships ?, no ship in the game can enter the Ocean, everything in the game is Coastal

Hard Sarge - The reference to a fleet I took from earlier postings and from my own early experience with the game. Your question has made me go back and rerun the game and it looks like I was .... Oh, the word I hate most of all to say, wrong. My inexperience was causing me to misread additional normal ships as ironclads. If I am seeing things right now, then I would say the problem is still there, but significantly smaller than my post indicated (one ship as opposed to a fleet). For this I am glad. For penance, I promise my next 3 posts will be positive.

Thankyou! I was looking at this and trying to find that Fleet you were talking about as well.I plead guilty to jumping to conclusions as well,thanks mike.

[Mike Scholl]

Don't know about "fleets" but I took to using the term "squadron" because as far as I can tell, each naval unit in the game represents 10 ships. Which seems odd for ironclads as under most circumstances, especially for the Confederacy, they were single entities. The Union did form a couple of squadrons as the war went on, but I don't recall the Rebs every having more than one or two in a location (backed up with some timber- and cotton-clads.) Each side having 10 in the Fall of 1861 just looked completely silly.

[Hard Sarge]

Roger, but to my thinking, I kind of still look at it as one ship, one Ironclad was worth more then ten wooden ships, but the rules say a ship should be seen as 10

[Marc von Martial]

Mike, really, do you have to post in bold or caps all the time? I mean if the letters are to small for you please use your browsers feature to increase font sizes. The quoting you do is hard to seperate from the posting you do, sorry.

[HARD_SARGE]

LOL
no fair, when I say HARD I hope no one thinks I am yelling

[Hard Sarge]

Hey, who said that

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
What were the designer's smoking when they put this monstrosity into the game? And can I buy some of it?

The ironclad foolishness, however bad, is nothing when compared to the ludicrous Union general ratings.

If the Union had possessed generals of the quality that this game gives them then the war would have been over by 1862.

[Hard Sarge]

Why do you say that ?

the forum had a poll system set up for the player to vote on what they thought most of the main Generals rateing should be (and in fact, I think based on the players, a number of Union Generals got there rateings lowered and some of the CSA got better rateing)

overall, the Union still gets enough decent Generals to hold there own

plus the other idea is, any General is better then no General is very true

Little Mac will not get the jump on many, but other then that, he is not bad, plus he is a good teacher early on

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Mike, really, do you have to post in bold or caps all the time? I mean if the letters are to small for you please use your browsers feature to increase font sizes. The quoting you do is hard to seperate from the posting you do, sorry.

It's simply a matter of EMPHASIS for certain portions of what I'm "trying" to say. If we were face-to-face it would be a matter of voice inflection(and undersdtanding would be much clearer). As that's not available in the print medium, I try to add inflection with some "visual indicators" I suspect this "ALL CAPS = shouting" comes from "chat rooms" along with a lot of the new common "abbreviations" people keep tossing around. I never hung around "chat rooms", so to me it's a foriegn concept, and many of the "abbreviations" might as well be Greek.