Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
-the list of all lines is shown in the right hand side panel, with economic info & option to build (if all IIPs are controlled)
-construction is done by private corporations, so there is no cost for player, though construction speed is very slow
-using transportation subsidies will allow government funding and will speed up the construction process considerably
-construction of multiple raillines simultaneously will slow down the progress
So, still not attempt to get the game to portray history then, CSA built no new rail ways except a link line in 64 to join two existing ones, that was only made possible by taking track from other rail lines. US had the US Military rail road that laid 000s of miles so the army could go where they needed as the private rail rail did not go there.
USMR took 3 years to build a tad over 2000 miles of mil only rail lines, CSA produced zero.
US spent 30 million to make the USMR, but that included over 400 locos, to recruit equip and maiatain for a year a Cav regiment cost 500k by comparison.
When you play the game, do you just follow what happened in real life? Sounds real boring, since you know, we already know how it turned out....
In all seriousness, I believe the perimeters are set historically, then its the players choice in what to do...
Any simulation is an abstraction of reality, so in game you have an economic resource, financial income and expenditure and production model not based on historical reality, that leads to a weapons/equipment production model that is not based on historical reality, and a logistical model not based on historical reality. These then lead to a combat model that cannot replicate historical casualty rates and movement rates and so on.
So in any game/simulation i expect the design to abstract historical reality, so that the user can conduct themselves by the same parameters of the period.
In game both sides are able to create RR lines that only one side had the ability to do in reality at a rate of c650 miles laid a year of single track, it cost the US Government 30 million to do so, it also cost 240 million to purchase and transport the food and fooder to the armies. Game does not get anywhere near close to an abstraction of reality.
Errr , then about 95% , at least , of historical war games are out the window right from the start.
1 . The User would not have the birds - eye view , with very very few and limited exceptions , until the late 20th or 21st century , and perhaps not even then , unless fighting a third - tier opponent .
Historical war games are already a niche market . Have been so for 60 years. Barring the unforeseen , it will remain a niche market for the next 60 years.
Now , limit the parameter to the typical historically faithful norm , that you can only see that part of the battlefield that you can see with your own eyes , while standing on the ground ?
No market at all , I venture.
( Except maybe First - Person - Shooters , which are near - uniformly Rambo - type fair as far as I can tell , which is arguably even worse. )
2. The user would not have anywhere close to the kind of control the user has.
If George III had anything remotely like the sort of control the typical wargamer has , I doubt very much the American Revolution would have ended with Yorktown , or with five , six , or even ten more Yorktown's or Saratoga's.
The British lost 2,000 , at most 3,000 , troops at Yorktown . But they had 30,000 parked in New York not doing anything . And the fact was they were winning as many , or more , battles than they were losing. Granted , the war was expensive , but then you could say that the American Revolution was only A PART OF a larger war , a larger war that was already frightfully expensive , and was going to be frightfully expensive , with or without the American tab , anyway.
But , alas , George III DID NOT , remotely , have the sort of control typically taken for granted in war games.
No real life Vietnam War would ever be lost . The Viet Cong was virtually wiped out in 1968 , and North Vietnam was consistently taking horrendous losses. U.S. Losses ?
A joke really , except to the victims of course.
Under such circumstances , what user , freed from arbitrary and wholly emotional public opinion , would ever throw in the towel ?
I try to imagine such a war game ; You are curb - stomping the opponent , but you lose anyway , because the byzantine math says that soccer moms in Iowa , and English professors in Vermont , are unhappy because ....... well, most of them couldn't point out to you where Hue is located on a map.
I bet that game would be a best seller . * sarcasm*
As for this particular case ? The Confederate States of America was by no stretch of the imagination monolithic. By no stretch of the imagination did Jefferson Davis , The Secretary of War , or any Robert E. Lee - type , have the kind of strategic control present in this ..........ummm , largely strategic ..... game.
Again , historical war games are already a niche market.
I have grave doubts there is much of a market for games where even the top leaders are , pretty much , pawns of the gods.
Gee , I need a 30 or 50 dollar game to show me that I'm largely insignificant and helpless dust in the wind , because there isn't enough of that in ordinary daily life ?
---
Now as to Strategic level war games on popular topics ?
The view strikes me as near uniformly lop - sided.
As I said , in terms strictly of dollars and cents , wins and losses and casualties , the British have at least an equal chance of winning the American Revolution .
But those are not the only metrics. There are other metrics. And those metrics say that British victory in the American Revolution is very unlikely . And largely due to factors , of course , that the player would not control.
The Wars of Frederick the Great ? Funny , at least the many books I have read on the subject , the Germans themselves are of the opinion , or admit , that Frederick was saved by a miracle in the form of Peter III.
Prussia doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell otherwise , except maybe given one of those crappy AI's everyone complains about.
The Napoleonic Wars ? Well , that's good news if you want to play an absolute Monarch ,
or maybe a banker with imperialistic aspirations ? .
If you want , however , to overlook that Napoleon was a wanna- be absolute Monarch who merely pasted the label " Republican " onto himself when it suited his purposes , my best guess is the odds are 95 % that Napoleon is going to wind up on Saint Helena anyway , and with or without the Russian debacle too.
The Confederate States of America ?
Lol.
The Third Reich ?
Lol.
A hypothetical blow up between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in the 1970's or 1980's ?
The Pentagon did war game this , and not for fun . The results were about 95% of the time pretty darn ugly or grim for NATO.
And they generally didn't shout that from the rooftops , even though it wasn't like they were trying to market a game.
Even though some perhaps large number of folks might get a real kick out of playing the " Bad Guys " in this case.
So ......
You can play the ( practically foregone ) winners.
Or you enjoy getting beat 99% of the time no matter what you do.
Those are your options.
Hmmm....................
I've been playing historical war games since Avalon Hill.
And I haven't the foggiest idea what war games you might be playing.
Or I could say simply then don't pick Southern Industrialization , and don't build railroads as Confederate.
Though I have a sneaky suspicion you never play CSA anyway.
And if the CSA AI can and does build railroads ?
I'd like to cut the crap and say that in 40 years I have NEVER seen a good AI.
It's an urban myth.
And in reality , and almost certainly in the game as well , the United States could win the war if the President was in a coma , and the Secretary of War was suffering from dementia.
Whether the Confederate AI does or does not build rail lines.
Wrong, if your just going to make up numbers to support your view point your just advertising to readers how dishonest your willing to be to make your point.
Historical wargames sold 2.2 US million in 1980 this grew to 2 billion in 2018 and is expected to rise to 4.4 billion by 2024, its boom industry, they have 20% of teh entire video game market, and only educational software outsells them, if your just going to make upstuff to make your point, your just advertising to readers how little you know about the subject.
I agree with you.
According to these projections[www.statista.com] the global video game market will be worth ~240 billion USD in 2024. If the 4.4 billion USD projection for historical wargames is correct, than it would be less than 2% of the video game market.
The source[www.researchgate.net] you seem to base your data on is in fact for board games, which it states quite clearly in its text (emphasis mine):
I also see you are still in insulting people who give any kind of counterpoint to you,
Why are you even here? You complain about every aspect of the game. Of course it will never 100% represent history. It's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game. If it represented history then there would be no point in it because the conclusion is foregone. If you hate it that much then just...stop? Stop playing it, stop worrying about it, stop insulting everyone.
The reason i seldom reply to your inane postings is because of your chronic incompetence, and of course you being innumerate, note his reference to historical wargames from 60 years ago always being a niche market and always will be?, well thats the kind of comment on boardgames that is ignorant, as your post content again makes clear as it has changed exactly as i wrote it had, the first commercial PC game not being invented 60 years ago, but today a round 3 million a day play them wordwide, clearly you wanted to look even more ignorant than him, and insulted him with the same data i used into the bargain, while thinking he had made a counter point instead of just expanding his range of ignorance.
First I did not confine myself to the US only market, according to you the US is now the entire video game market. Second a historical wargame is any game set in a period of history that simulates military conflict, so your own data set for US is over 20% playing wargames.
Back on ignore for you.
Im embarrassed for you.
Ive played this game since the minute it came out. I have 900 hours in it. It is the closest thing we have to an accurate simulation that encompasses both strategic and tactical warfare. Is it perfect? No. I tinker with the code all the time to get the game to do what I want it to do. I change leaders stats to be what I think they should be. But the skeleton of the game is the closest thing I have seen to an all encompassing game. Its been in early access for almost a year. I have been on these discussion boards frequently, throwing my two cents in on how to improve the game, and helping others figure it out.
You on the other hand, have been on this pretty much as long as I have, and have literally been a prick to everyone on every thread. So I pose this question to you...whens your game coming out?
These discussion groups are here to help each other, and during early access, help the devs work out balancing issues and bugs, not for you criticize everyone and everything. If you cant do that, just stay the ♥♥♥♥ off the boards.