Sea Invasions

From the creators of Crown of Glory come an epic tale of North Vs. South. By combining area movement on the grand scale with optional hex based tactical battles when they occur, Forge of Freedom provides something for every strategy gamer. Control economic development, political development with governers and foreign nations, and use your military to win the bloodiest war in US history.

Moderator: Gil R.

User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by morganbj »

I guess you missed all the parts about topography and avenues of approach.  Fair enough.
 
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by Mad Russian »

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

As far as the presence or absence of the Confederate Navy goes, when Steven Mallory became SecNav in February 1861 he had 10-‘warships’ mounting a total of 15-guns, the largest being a 42-pounder pivot gun on the ex revenue cutter William Atkin.  Pres. Davis authorized Letters of Marque for privateers starting in May 1861 and the first ship sailed in June.  However, privateers were only useful as commerce raiders and whether under the Confederacy or the Kaiser, cruiser warfare could be a costly irritant but could never be decisive.  That the vast majority of the 350 odd naval officers that ‘went South’ required shore appointments because the Navy had no ships makes the approach taken by FoF entirely reasonable.

The observation that Pensacola should be a port is well taken though.

Just my $0.02, apologies for the long post.

Don't stop there. List the capabilities of the US Navy at the start of the war.

Even if the CSN only had 10 ships, we won't discuss what constitutes a ship just yet, where are they? Even 10 ships is a threat. To push one side of the argument, that I don't like, why did the US Navy build ships while all they had to do was build frigates if FoF has it right?

Why no land effects on forts from the sea? Why no ability to support a siege on forts and towns? Targets that don't move and are well within range of naval fire

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Why go to Florida? You have to march hundreds of miles to get anywhere. That same argument could be used for any southern state not adjacent to the original starting positions.

Why move downriver to New Orleans? You have to march hundreds of miles just to get there.

If Eric argued that it was historically possible for the Union to have built an effective force for amphibious operations in all these discussions you had he was right.

It doesn't matter what actually happened. What matters, is what could have happened, and what the forces were capable of if they had been put together in that fashion.

Lee should have lost the Civil War at Antietam but he didn't. So then should we leave that possibility out for 1862. That if the Army of Northern Virginia gets destroyed in 1862 the Confederacy gets a free supply of men equal to what was lost?

Of course not. Your assumption that because the terrain was "difficult" that it was impossible to traverse, is the same ideology used by the French in their 1940 defense. The Germans showed just how easily that can be countered with their Ardennes offensive answer.

We aren't talking a regiment or two here. I can actually see the poor results if there are a very few troops involved. The stock answer gets a bit harder to swallow when we are talking considerable numbers.

Send your militia against my 30,000 men and see if you route them.

As for, "Don't Mess With Texas", I'm not impressed. The saying should have been "Don't Mess With WEST Texas" in the first place!

Good Hunting.

MR


What you're overlooking is that many of these regions were howling wildernesses, and that even the limited forces sent into them often suffered very badly in consequence. See various forces in Arkansas and Sibley's expedition to New Mexico.

France in 1940 is irrelevant. You're not going to run out of water in the Ardennes, and the nearest source of flour isn't four hundred miles away by mule -- not that there were all that many mules in Central Texas in 1863 in the first place. Nor did either the Confederacy or the Union sport the kind of centralized bureaucracies and command economies that would have made overcoming these obstacles especially practical.

I'm not defending the game. Its reach was bigger than its grasp, and it fails badly on a number of points. However, making it practical for an army of twenty thousand men to march and fight across such country in 1863 wouldn't be an improvement.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
As far as the grand tactical system I won't linger too long on it since I've not used it. It seems to satisfy alot of gamers thirst for that type of combat. The one thing I do know is that the battles aren't on historical ground. For the tactical part of the game I would think that would be a must offer option. The maps of the areas are easily attainable. While I've heard the argument that the battles wouldn't necessarily be fought over the same ground there is a reason they were fought there to begin with and those same reasons would normally hold true over time.

We've never received an outright complaint that the battlefields are randomized, nor have I seen an "I didn't buy FOF because it doesn't use historical battlefields" comment on a non-Matrix forum, so I'm not convinced that this is a necessity.

I for one would definitely like historical battlefields -- and as MR points out, battles did happen at these points for a reason. The Wilderness/Fredericksburg saw three of the largest battles of the Civil War. Manassas, two. I think there were four Winchesters.

It'd be GREAT if one had an option to use the historical field when a battle occurred in a province for which a map or maps had been done. Moreover, these could be kind of a plug-in, so perhaps you could delegate some of the work.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by ColinWright »


[quote]ORIGINAL: Mad Russian



You can land troops from the sea but get no supply from them?


/quote]

Note that the Japanese in World War Two proved to be past masters at doing just this. Not exactly a relevant example, but the phenomenon is certainly not as unrealistic as your question implies.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

As far as the presence or absence of the Confederate Navy goes, when Steven Mallory became SecNav in February 1861 he had 10-‘warships’ mounting a total of 15-guns, the largest being a 42-pounder pivot gun on the ex revenue cutter William Atkin. Pres. Davis authorized Letters of Marque for privateers starting in May 1861 and the first ship sailed in June. However, privateers were only useful as commerce raiders and whether under the Confederacy or the Kaiser, cruiser warfare could be a costly irritant but could never be decisive. That the vast majority of the 350 odd naval officers that ‘went South’ required shore appointments because the Navy had no ships makes the approach taken by FoF entirely reasonable.

The observation that Pensacola should be a port is well taken though.

Just my $0.02, apologies for the long post.

Don't stop there. List the capabilities of the US Navy at the start of the war.

Even if the CSN only had 10 ships, we won't discuss what constitutes a ship just yet, where are they? Even 10 ships is a threat. To push one side of the argument, that I don't like, why did the US Navy build ships while all they had to do was build frigates if FoF has it right?

Why no land effects on forts from the sea? Why no ability to support a siege on forts and towns? Targets that don't move and are well within range of naval fire

Good Hunting.

MR

For starters, you'd really want to change the mechanics of the naval game. The US navy did build ironclads and such -- but to face forts and fight southern ironclads. What you appear to want are Southern ships that can seriously challenge the Union Navy on the high seas -- of which there weren't any.

I'd say we'd want ironclads along the lines of the Merrimac, Arkansas, and others: formidable but bay- and river-bound monsters that aren't about to go anywhere.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by Mad Russian »

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

I guess you missed all the parts about topography and avenues of approach. Fair enough.

For what?

We still only talking Galveston or other issues?

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by Mad Russian »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

As far as the presence or absence of the Confederate Navy goes, when Steven Mallory became SecNav in February 1861 he had 10-‘warships’ mounting a total of 15-guns, the largest being a 42-pounder pivot gun on the ex revenue cutter William Atkin. Pres. Davis authorized Letters of Marque for privateers starting in May 1861 and the first ship sailed in June. However, privateers were only useful as commerce raiders and whether under the Confederacy or the Kaiser, cruiser warfare could be a costly irritant but could never be decisive. That the vast majority of the 350 odd naval officers that ‘went South’ required shore appointments because the Navy had no ships makes the approach taken by FoF entirely reasonable.

The observation that Pensacola should be a port is well taken though.

Just my $0.02, apologies for the long post.

Don't stop there. List the capabilities of the US Navy at the start of the war.

Even if the CSN only had 10 ships, we won't discuss what constitutes a ship just yet, where are they? Even 10 ships is a threat. To push one side of the argument, that I don't like, why did the US Navy build ships while all they had to do was build frigates if FoF has it right?

Why no land effects on forts from the sea? Why no ability to support a siege on forts and towns? Targets that don't move and are well within range of naval fire

Good Hunting.

MR

For starters, you'd really want to change the mechanics of the naval game. The US navy did build ironclads and such -- but to face forts and fight southern ironclads. What you appear to want are Southern ships that can seriously challenge the Union Navy on the high seas -- of which there weren't any.

I'd say we'd want ironclads along the lines of the Merrimac, Arkansas, and others: formidable but bay- and river-bound monsters that aren't about to go anywhere.


What I'd really like to see is the naval warfare not near so abstracted. The Union navy should have reason to build on a historical level. At present there is no need to do so and no advantage in building anything other than frigates.

The supply from sea isn't realistic at all. It takes a ship for every 3 brigades to move by sea but a single frigate can supply the entire Union Army in the coastal zone?

I don't care how toothless the CS Navy was on opening day, the US Navy was in, as bad, or worse shape. The Union starts the game with ships and the CSA doesn't. That's just out of alignment.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by Randomizer »

Went South to visit Seattle for a couple of days and so missed some of the fun!
Mad Russian wrote:
What I'd really like to see is the naval warfare not near so abstracted. The Union navy should have reason to build on a historical level. At present there is no need to do so and no advantage in building anything other than frigates.

I can agree with the former but not the latter. However, building a parallel game where the USN is required build blue-water ships to hunt Confederate raiders would be a game unto itself. Realistically, unless one was prepared to incorporate political events like boarding foriegn-flagged merchants (the Slidell incident for example) or the Laird Rams or the financial cost of decimating the US merchant marine and the subsequent carriage of US goods on foriegn bottoms it might be difficult to do well. I submit that while such a sub-system might add colour and create real problems for the Federal Navy, there was probably no prospects of Southern blue-water naval operations having a significant effect on the course of the War. Therefore omitting them makes sense from a game standpoint.

As for the frigate issue, in the 1860's, a 'frigate' was considered square rigged with a single gun deck. It seems that in FoF, the term is used for all single gun-decked ships and since most Federal ocean-going new construction were single gun-decked but barque or brig rigged, the term 'Frigate' is general enough to be fairly accurate. Examples might be USS Kearsarge, USS Hartford and USS Housatonic. The South built few if any at home although a handful were converted from merchants in Southern ports most were built or converted overseas. Raiders like CSS Alabama and CSS Sumter often never even sighted Confederate soil throughout their service lives so their omission in game terms is again reasonable.

Mad Russian wrote:
I don't care how toothless the CS Navy was on opening day, the US Navy was in, as bad, or worse shape. The Union starts the game with ships and the CSA doesn't. That's just out of alignment.

Cannot agree. Privateers with Letters of Marque constituted the majority of blue-water Confederate warships. No privateer would tangle with a Federal warship unless something went terribly wrong and (with a handfull of minor exceptions) all resulted in the defeat and destruction or capture of the raider. Providing blue-water warships to the Confederacy gratus would create an entirely non-historical naval situation. None of the regular Confederate cruisers operated in the home waters covered by the game.

Having written this please note that it appears that the Confederates a can build gunboats and ironclads to effectively contest the rivers systems but I have not yet gotten to the point in my FoF experiance to see first hand how this works.

Best Regards
User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by morganbj »

Hey, Mad Russian,

I agree with you more than you think.  There is a great deal of abstraction in the game that makes it difficult to understand what was possible and what was not.  All I'm saying is that Texas was not a major target for two reasons:  It was not that important, and it was really, really diffcult for a large (more than division or brigade) body of troops to invade and successfully take ground for any useful reason.  The game makes Texas much more important as a target than it actualy was, and much too easy to invade than it actually was at the time.  Essentially, the terrain here sucks!  That's really my point.  (I'm sure the local Chamber of Commerce is looking for my address, as we speak.)

When I was in the C&GSC (Command and General Staff College, US Army, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas), we spent days, many days, walking the terrain of the Texas/Louisiana/Florida coast.  While we were looking at modern scenarios (well, 1980's, anyway), it was readily apparent that what we saw was "what's-the-point?"  Even today, except for Houston, that has become a MAJOR petrochemical center for the US, there's not much operational or strategic value to an invasion on the Gulf Coast, except for the Mississippi River.  That was even more so the case in 1862-65.  Once an enemy takes Houston even today, It's almost 500 miles to anywhere else of any import.  (Boy, the Houston crowd will hate that comment.)

My point was that the game makes such an invasion far too easy, (I think it was virtually impossibe during the 1860's), and way too useful to the North.  I believe that's just not the case, in reality.  It stinks as a strategic avenue of approach (and really stunk in 1863), and there's nothing here, anyway.  In the 1860's, there was even less.  So, when you say that your siege of Austin was too difficult, my response was: "well, that's about right."

Now, to your point about Mobile, et al.  I think that the possibilities there are not as good in the game as they actually were in reality.  There ARE good ways to invade the area, and the game makes this far too difficult, I think.  All of this supports my position that the game is not a true simulation, but a historically-based game that demonstrates issues pretty well, but not necessarily realistic solutions to those issues.

I also don't think the North's navy was as disadvantaged as you seem to believe, but the South essentially had no navy at all all.  Ever.  One thing's for certain:  The Union navy really choked the life out of the South, at least in terms of making it possible for the South to "win."  The North's blockade was not decisive, maybe, but it made sure that the South had a very, very difficult time.  The importance of the North's Navy may have been over-stated historicallly, but since the South essentially had none, it is really not that big of a misconception, I guess.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I love FOF.  It's really good.  Very good, indeed.  It's just not what I would call the definitive "simulation" of the war.  A heck of a lot of fun, yes.  The best out there, perhaps.  (I'm still learning GGWBS.)  But it's not perfect.  I think that's really your point, too.  Am I wrong?
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan


Now, don't get me wrong. I love FOF. It's really good. Very good, indeed. It's just not what I would call the definitive "simulation" of the war. A heck of a lot of fun, yes. The best out there, perhaps. (I'm still learning GGWBS.) But it's not perfect. I think that's really your point, too. Am I wrong?

There probably never can be a 'perfect' simulation in that in reality no individual or group of individuals had anything like the control a player has.

What would the 'perfect' game be? Something where you as Abe Lincoln try to come up with the verbal formula that will actually get McClellan to move? Or something where you as Abe Lincoln get to be some sort of American Ludendorff? The first wouldn't be much fun; the second not very realistic. Picture yourself being the real-life Jeff Davis in 1864. You leave in Joe Johnston -- your army just falls back each turn. You put in Hood; it seeks battle when the Union outnumbers it 2-1. Not what people want.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: Sea Invasions

Post by morganbj »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan


Now, don't get me wrong. I love FOF. It's really good. Very good, indeed. It's just not what I would call the definitive "simulation" of the war. A heck of a lot of fun, yes. The best out there, perhaps. (I'm still learning GGWBS.) But it's not perfect. I think that's really your point, too. Am I wrong?

There probably never can be a 'perfect' simulation in that in reality no individual or group of individuals had anything like the control a player has.

What would the 'perfect' game be? Something where you as Abe Lincoln try to come up with the verbal formula that will actually get McClellan to move? Or something where you as Abe Lincoln get to be some sort of American Ludendorff? The first wouldn't be much fun; the second not very realistic. Picture yourself being the real-life Jeff Davis in 1864. You leave in Joe Johnston -- your army just falls back each turn. You put in Hood; it seeks battle when the Union outnumbers it 2-1. Not what people want.

You've totally missed my point. I never said it should be more of a simulation. I'm merely presenting an argument as to why it is not a simulation. Far too many people seem to believe that if they can do it in the game, it could have been done in real life. This thinking is patently absurd, if for no other reason that what you state above. Nobody, in reality, had the control that the player does.

A perfect game and a perfect simualtion are two different things. A perfect game is one in which all systems are internally consistent, which has no bugs, which does not allow historically impossible things from happening, and which gives players a reasonable chance to "win." Winning in this case may be just doing better than what actually happened.

All games have play balance mechanisms built in to make the last thing possible, but sometimes these mechanisms are just not historical. I believe it's important for people to realize that this is just part of making a game that's based on historical events.

What about FOF is not perfect? Well, for one, HW has its quirks. Ever notice that the AI always moves more toward the top of the screen than the bottom. Every game units slowly slide off toward the top. It's a minor movement bias, but it's there. Should it be fixed? Probably not. But I can always make my plans based on the fact that the enemy will more likely than not move to my left if I'm defending. The one exception to this is when there's an objective hex fairly close to the bottom. Then, it seems like the enemy always goes that way first.

Also, do you think that the way you have to get brigades to surrender is accurate? After the first year or so, I can typically get a dozen or more brigades to surrender every large battle. It's essential to win the game doing that if you're the South. But brigades just didn't surrender in those numbers in every large battle. While it did happen, it happened very infrequently. I do it every battle of any size at all.

Also, if it were perfect, the AI would give a better game than any human. It would optimize everything to the nth degree and would just be unstoppable. But, we know that the AI is much, much easier than a human opponent. Does this make FOF a bad game? Of course not. It's a wonderful game.

I could go on and on. But you either see my point, or you don't.

All I'm saying is that when reality is abstracted, things are done that are not accurate. I understand that. I used to program business simulations myself. (I once did an inventory simulation that was to die for.) The developers must balance playability and enjoyability against reality. FOF is a GREAT balance of the three. It has far fewer compromises than most games I've seen.

It's just not a simulation. That's all.
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
Post Reply

Return to “Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865”