Former Infantry NCO. The lower-ranking person begins the salute, but the higher-ranking person lowers his hand first. At least… in today’s military. I’m not sure if this was different during the civil war.
1 Like
Yesterday, I hit 15,100 words, short of my goal but still good. I have another family commitment this evening, but I’m aiming for 17,000 words this afternoon. Have to finish up the first part of the early battle before moving on to the arrival of Franklin’s Brigade. Tedious leg work, but it must be done.
1 Like
Will we be able to to meet Abraham, also could we befriend some historical figures like grant or someone else?
Meeting President Lincoln seems very unlikely as the game will focus on the actual military campaigns.
Meeting Grant could be a possibility if I finish writing this game, publish it, then write many more until a point where Grant could possibly be in the Eastern Theatre of the war. Seems pretty unlikely, too.
However, most of the characters in the story are real historical figures, but not as widely remembered as the ones you mention.
1 Like
I think it will be really interesting to see the “rotating” command of the North from a Union officer perspective. Full disclosure: I am a pretty strong McClellan supporter, and with this kind of first battle, I think the MC will be pre-dispositioned toward him as well.
3 Likes
I’ve always been fascinated with the rotating command and seeing how leaders rise through the ranks and command larger and larger units as the war goes on. For example, Major George Sykes commanded an infantry battalion at First Bull Run, and two years later Major General Sykes commanded a Corps at Gettysburg.
I have thought about adding a friendship statistic, so based on your choices you can become friends with different officers, many of which will come back in later campaigns (assuming I get that far.) I doubt it would be critical to the game but it would be a fun element of immersion and not terribly hard to do.
Interesting point of view on McClellan. I think he was always more or less liked by the actual army, as much as he infuriated Lincoln (and generations of historians.) I grew up viewing him as an absolute disaster of a general, and I think I still have a similar view of him today, although he was a very charismatic person and a great trainer and organizer. If this game works out, I am really looking forward to writing the Peninsular Campaign from the point of view of a brigade/division commander.
2 Likes
Well, if the MC starts as a major and will “work their way up the chain of command”, he could very well influence such matters.
As for Little Mac, I think of him as a kind of unintentional Fabian. Whether or not he did it for the right reasons, I think his strategy was the most sound for the situation, as he was all about denying Confederate momentum. With the North being the more economically stable, I think that was absolutely the way to go.
As for Lincoln, I fully agree with infuriating him, as he was a horrible boss for a commander to have. He really seemed to underestimate how losable the war was and seemed to see it as some minor inconvenience that needed to be ended immediately. I think that a lot of McClellan’s poor rep comes from Lincoln, as McClellan ran against him for office, forcing additional mudslinging. And it’s not like the other generals were doing bang-up jobs. Consider the worst Union defeats for the entire war, and consider where McClellan’s worst defeat is. Again, I acknowledge that his caution was more caution rather than strategy, but if something works, it works. Also remember that Fabian was considered a disaster when he was in charge as well. Caution is never celebrated by military historians, but sometimes it is the necessary tone.
1 Like
Interesting demo and a promising start. The US Civil War is a period with a lot of potential, and I felt the descriptions of the fighting in the latter part of the demo were well done.
The one thing that was a bit of a problem for me through the demo is that I wasn’t entirely sure how the project is going to pan out. Will it be the ACW through the PC’s eyes - like they’re a sort of camera that doesn’t really affect much - or will they have some degree of agency to affect things (even if slightly, e.g. making a defeat less worse, distinguishing themselves, speeding up the war by a few weeks). How much of it is going to be “experiencing the historic ACW” vs “how much is it going to be a game”? There isn’t a lot to go off so far, but I assume it leans towards the former, from first impressions and the lack of stats/checks.
Consequently it’s kind of hard to get attached to either the PC or anyone around them. A Civil War history buff would know who Burnside or Sherman is, but someone who isn’t so familiar (but has a vague interest in military themed games) wouldn’t really care that much.
I think that a relationship system would be helpful if the project goes beyond the first few battles. It’s a war where commanders change relatively often, there’s political generals, people jockeying for political support, abolitionism. And if the PC went to West Point (and probably got involved in the Mexican-American War or was out west) there’s personal relationships before the war too (having the military PC and the artillery captain be buddies was a nice touch).
Keeping track of too many relationships could be a problem though, for coding and for players. In the East there’d be quite a few to keep track of. In the West Grant and Sherman could be the main senior officers which the PC would come into contact with (and Sherman was at First Bull Run, so that’s already a place where the PC’s relationship with him can kick off early) and then the PC could come East with Grant like Sheridan.
Either way, interested to see how this goes, good luck!
2 Likes
The author said we would be able to change some out comes of battles during the civil war in the interest thread
2 Likes
@Thfphen110 Thanks for your support! I appreciate you taking the time to engage with the demo.
-
I think it will be half and half. I think the player will be able to impact the battles just because that will be more fun and give the player agency. I think their agency will increase over time as well, because a Regimental commander can’t do much, but a Division commander can do a lot. One thing I want is to keep the battles pretty much as the real battles, although the player can impact the outcome. So like, Gettysburg will happen similar to the way it happened, but I will put the player there and let them make choices.
-
Stats and checks I intend to add later. When I’m writing I’m focused on the story, and making stats is more like game development, I can add them later. I had thought about valor/discipline or aggressive/methodical.
-
Right now I think this will stay in the east although I considered doing Shiloh next. But I think the Peninsula Campaign is the next direction I will take it. I suspect I will have to combat my desire to add more and more characters haha, but hopefully there can be a few central ones that players can keep track of while others are more minor.
4 Likes
Thank you for the reply!
I think that’s a good balance - certainly, changing things too much would substantially increase the work load too. I was thinking relatively minor strategically but notable things. Like at First Bull Run if the player made correct choices, you’d have some more success compared to the IRL Union, but they’d still be forced to retreat. Perhaps the PC could make a very good show of themselves and their men in a fighting retreat too. Part of a machine but still able to stand out somewhat.
I’d suggest mentioning that in the OP or in a intro page for the game so that players don’t get any misconceptions.
Fair enough! I’d only mentioned the West because Grant and Sherman would be mainstays and there’d be somewhat more visible “progress” of the war going on, so player actions (whether it’s significant or not in terms of how the story goes) would feel more relevant. The East has the potential of having a player constantly irritated by the rest of the army messing it up (which, to be fair, wouldn’t be unrealistic, but it could get grating for some).
I’d think more than 8 major characters would really be stretching it for players to keep track of. It might be useful to signpost them early. For instance if Burnside’s one of them, the PC should have an unavoidable scene where they interact with Burnside significantly. Interacting with a lot of junior or staff officers is probably realistic, but sometimes those conversations can probably be summed up in a sentence or two - it can distract from the “action” or major characters.
1 Like
Part of a machine but still able to stand out somewhat.
Yes, exactly. Able to make decisions, but in a limited role. I won’t spoil the planned endings for First Bull Run, but I am planning to have more than one based on player choices. I think a crushing Union victory can be safely ruled out as a possibility for this battle, though.
I’d suggest mentioning that in the OP or in a intro page
Good call, the original post was needing an update. I have updated it.
3 Likes
Will there be any non-opposed stats?
Not sure yet, to be honest.
1 Like
For those following the progress of this demo, I hit my goal yesterday of 18,000 words. I have finished up the first part of the battle and can put a bow on it. Now I am planning the second stage of the battle. Today I am mostly making maps, but I hope to get some writing done, too. I think I am going to write three parallel scenes with similar content but different outcomes. This is based on the big player choice at the end of part 1.
5 Likes
Had a nice weekend. Monday was another family health emergency so i didn’t get anything done, but it ended up okay so no worries. Today, I am refocused and pushing forward to my goal. Target is 21,000 words, but I am hopeful that I will surpass it. Now that I have finished all the leg work from the last scene, I am able to drive forward with momentum. Action scenes are my specialty, so the prose comes easy.
6 Likes
Hit my goal of 21,000!
7 Likes
So a little update. On the weekend, I programmed a sailing game just for fun, and I learned some stuff from that process. Basically, I am going to “gamify” this a little bit more. it seems to me that the whole focus of this story is the battle, so why not build real battle mechanics instead of trying to keep track of all of it in my head?
So far, I’ve made variables to keep track of regimental strength, and battalion strength. So each time you get hit with a volley and half a dozen guys go down, you will actually lose about six men from your unit strength. This way, when I get to the later portion of the battle, I can do checks based on unit strength to impact the late game. So instead of having 2 or 3 big decisions, it will be a little more attrition based where numerous small decisions add up to an efficient commander.
Target today is 23,000 words, and I will try to post an update here. I am currently writing the “center” scene, where the Union attacks up the center of the ridge.
6 Likes
This is fantastic news for me to hear. Really looking forward to it.
1 Like
4000 word update posted today. Choose the center attack if you want to see the new content. thanks all for the continued support!
Also, you can now check the stat screen for live updates on your troop numbers during the fight.
5 Likes