well,
I know I'm kicking in an open door by starting yet another civil war thread.
The reason? Well, during the last weeks I got hooked on to this nice game about the american civil war. Some sites quote it to be the best simulation about the civil war.
I'm also convinced they were able to bring into account the major parameters that could (and did) decide the outcome of the war. In general I'm concerned how Paradox stands on this one. "The way of the war", like I would like to call it was totally different for the civil war and f.e. WWI and WWII. In fact HOI was designed for one sole purpose = WWII.
Perhaps another thread has already covered this, but how does Paradox stand on =
- supply level of the armies. This seems to be the biggest parameter = get those goods that are needed for your war machine. If the south becomes able to break the blockades, the Union will get it more and more difficult. In the game you can decide to build warships instead of blockade runners...you can try it out,
- supply model, the whole supply model was critical for the war. It seems that a clever tactician will get the benefit out of wars of attrition, supply status of armies, supply mode, keep reserve divisions at the right place. Attacking the south is not that easy! I can assure you,
- production investment. You can either invest in more weapons production or better weapons that are more expensive. It seems that the game (and correctly) places the gamer before some challenging dillemma's) = should I build 4000 cheap muskets or 1000 springfields in Charleston?
- draft level. Spend your money on soldiers OR on production??? Drafting more and more troops destroys the balance between your production and your army strength. Some period are really bad for drafting. Presidential appeals increase the draft level, but they are restricted for free usage,
- leadership and leadership recognition. A leader can have pre-set levels but also random if you prefer. They had no crystal ball about which general was good and bad. But due to game balancing, the South gets in overall better generals (but it takes time true experience) to see who's best and who not...
- foreign intervention. Perhaps the best way for the South to win the war. The game allows an intervention from either France or Britain. First stage intervention is to break the blockade of the Southern ports, in a later stage land battles are possible,
- importance of the border states kentucky and missouri during the war. See the game itself about how they are modeled,
- a state only falls when the capital falls. Most often (due to the supply model) you need to cover some cities to be able to attack the capital and capture the whole state,
- big importance (for sure for the South) of the railroad network and river network (transportation grid = not every city is linked to the grid!),
why this thread? When I see the EU2 game engine the true flavor of some specific war theathers (like the conflict between the USA-CSA) could become very very nasty tasting.
Remember the independance USA scenario from EU2? Dragging a unit to a neighbouring province, followed by one battle and a siege (or assault) determines the effect on the capture of the whole state? I don't think that's possible.
let's keep being optimistic, where can we make the difference during battles in these conflicts in the victoria game?
I would like to see a game where the South can solve the blockade issue and fight the battle on the field...with the right amount of supplies,
I think we have to move away from the World conquest engines and make games (like Victoria pretends to be and HOI was a good step into that direction) that are more suited for their time period.
The mustard comes from working the levers that can determine the outcome of a conflict, NOT dragging sprites around and NOT world conquest.
http://www.adanaccommandstudies.com/index.html
I know I'm kicking in an open door by starting yet another civil war thread.
The reason? Well, during the last weeks I got hooked on to this nice game about the american civil war. Some sites quote it to be the best simulation about the civil war.
I'm also convinced they were able to bring into account the major parameters that could (and did) decide the outcome of the war. In general I'm concerned how Paradox stands on this one. "The way of the war", like I would like to call it was totally different for the civil war and f.e. WWI and WWII. In fact HOI was designed for one sole purpose = WWII.
Perhaps another thread has already covered this, but how does Paradox stand on =
- supply level of the armies. This seems to be the biggest parameter = get those goods that are needed for your war machine. If the south becomes able to break the blockades, the Union will get it more and more difficult. In the game you can decide to build warships instead of blockade runners...you can try it out,
- supply model, the whole supply model was critical for the war. It seems that a clever tactician will get the benefit out of wars of attrition, supply status of armies, supply mode, keep reserve divisions at the right place. Attacking the south is not that easy! I can assure you,
- production investment. You can either invest in more weapons production or better weapons that are more expensive. It seems that the game (and correctly) places the gamer before some challenging dillemma's) = should I build 4000 cheap muskets or 1000 springfields in Charleston?
- draft level. Spend your money on soldiers OR on production??? Drafting more and more troops destroys the balance between your production and your army strength. Some period are really bad for drafting. Presidential appeals increase the draft level, but they are restricted for free usage,
- leadership and leadership recognition. A leader can have pre-set levels but also random if you prefer. They had no crystal ball about which general was good and bad. But due to game balancing, the South gets in overall better generals (but it takes time true experience) to see who's best and who not...
- foreign intervention. Perhaps the best way for the South to win the war. The game allows an intervention from either France or Britain. First stage intervention is to break the blockade of the Southern ports, in a later stage land battles are possible,
- importance of the border states kentucky and missouri during the war. See the game itself about how they are modeled,
- a state only falls when the capital falls. Most often (due to the supply model) you need to cover some cities to be able to attack the capital and capture the whole state,
- big importance (for sure for the South) of the railroad network and river network (transportation grid = not every city is linked to the grid!),
why this thread? When I see the EU2 game engine the true flavor of some specific war theathers (like the conflict between the USA-CSA) could become very very nasty tasting.
Remember the independance USA scenario from EU2? Dragging a unit to a neighbouring province, followed by one battle and a siege (or assault) determines the effect on the capture of the whole state? I don't think that's possible.
let's keep being optimistic, where can we make the difference during battles in these conflicts in the victoria game?
I would like to see a game where the South can solve the blockade issue and fight the battle on the field...with the right amount of supplies,
I think we have to move away from the World conquest engines and make games (like Victoria pretends to be and HOI was a good step into that direction) that are more suited for their time period.
The mustard comes from working the levers that can determine the outcome of a conflict, NOT dragging sprites around and NOT world conquest.
http://www.adanaccommandstudies.com/index.html
In the meanwhile, read the FAQ.
