Frustratingly non historical

[Wheat]

I alluded to this in another post, but the non-historical dates, locations of at least the following, when this is common historical knowledge. I really don't get it. Makes me feel like I'm playing a game more like Risk than what I want...a wargame.

USS Cairo...was built in Mound City, IL, which is basically the region next to Cairo IL. Apparently if appears randomly, as one poster said he got it in Chester, IL. I have twice gotten it in Chicago!! During the winter with frozen rivers. While Chester is at least reasonable, Chicago is not.

I noticed I was battling 4 Confederate ironclads in late 1861. The Manassas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

Manassas was a ram, with one gun, and 12 rounds of ammo. It was available late 1861 at least.
Arkansas, was available late May, 1862. Great history with this ship, but it wasn't around in 1861.
Mississippi, late April, 1862...and that's when it got burned...it had no operational engines or guns. So, prolly wouldn't have been operational till 63.
Tennessee, launched in Feb 1863, but had no guns etc, became operational in Feb 1864. WTH its fighting in 1861 in this game of RISK.

All of these ships seem to have capabilities far greater than they should. Are the designers aware of the nature of these ships? They were jury rigged ships, that could barely be steered, powered etc, but had extremely highly motivated crews. They did some awesome things, but the 1861 CSA naval capabilities this game allows are fantasy.

[Taillebois]

I hate it when it's historical.

It's a game with a historical theme to it.

[DrPostman]

When it comes to the CSN their effect was out of proportion with what they had
throughout the war. I believe that is reflected by when and how the ironclads
arrive. I agree with you that the USS Cairo shouldn't appear in Chicago though.
The CSS Manassas was the reason why the CSA won the Battle of the Head of Passes
Here's a description in the words of the famous Shelby Foote. Description of the
battle begins at 4:17
[video=youtube;bmk-QEk67B8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmk-QEk67B8[/video]

[Durk]

I alluded to this in another post, but the non-historical dates, locations of at least the following, when this is common historical knowledge. I really don't get it. Makes me feel like I'm playing a game more like Risk than what I want...a wargame.

USS Cairo...was built in Mound City, IL, which is basically the region next to Cairo IL. Apparently if appears randomly, as one poster said he got it in Chester, IL. I have twice gotten it in Chicago!! During the winter with frozen rivers. While Chester is at least reasonable, Chicago is not.

I noticed I was battling 4 Confederate ironclads in late 1861. The Manassas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

Manassas was a ram, with one gun, and 12 rounds of ammo. It was available late 1861 at least.
Arkansas, was available late May, 1862. Great history with this ship, but it wasn't around in 1861.
Mississippi, late April, 1862...and that's when it got burned...it had no operational engines or guns. So, prolly wouldn't have been operational till 63.
Tennessee, launched in Feb 1863, but had no guns etc, became operational in Feb 1864. WTH its fighting in 1861 in this game of RISK.

All of these ships seem to have capabilities far greater than they should. Are the designers aware of the nature of these ships? They were jury rigged ships, that could barely be steered, powered etc, but had extremely highly motivated crews. They did some awesome things, but the 1861 CSA naval capabilities this game allows are fantasy.

It is easy to nitpick bits and pieces, but to me an investment in a game is to explore the designer's theory of the conflict. No game that I know of gets every itty bitty detail as they cannot. Even the massive World in Flames had to make some compromises to reality for play to be possible. Sometimes, more specific accuracy in detail means a game which is a less accurate study of the conflict. This game uses a flexibility in naval deployment in keeping with the governing idea of where ships could be built. One down side to building in the exact place happens in other games where your opponent knows precisely where your reinforcement will arrive and is waiting to destroy it.

What players should not be blind to is the way CW2 manages to be the most accurate simulation of the American Civil War on the market because it has flexibility to allow players to explore the what ifs, while avoiding some of the pitfalls of more deterministic game where you just watch history happen.

I think what you might be seeking is a tactical naval game where the closer attention to ship qualities actually matters.

[ERISS]

One down side to building in the exact place happens in other games where your opponent knows precisely where your reinforcement will arrive and is waiting to destroy it.

And even, no need to wait when the time is historicaly precise too: Just read an history book to know what the opponent player will do.
When there is no choice of likely where nor likely when, there is no longer game. Some freedom (and their cost too..) has to be given for being a game, not an interactive film.
However, one has to tell how something in the game should be impossible, to make the game historicaly coherent (not exact). The designer (and even historians) could make errors.

[1stvermont]

I alluded to this in another post, but the non-historical dates, locations of at least the following, when this is common historical knowledge. I really don't get it. Makes me feel like I'm playing a game more like Risk than what I want...a wargame.

USS Cairo...was built in Mound City, IL, which is basically the region next to Cairo IL. Apparently if appears randomly, as one poster said he got it in Chester, IL. I have twice gotten it in Chicago!! During the winter with frozen rivers. While Chester is at least reasonable, Chicago is not.

I noticed I was battling 4 Confederate ironclads in late 1861. The Manassas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

Manassas was a ram, with one gun, and 12 rounds of ammo. It was available late 1861 at least.
Arkansas, was available late May, 1862. Great history with this ship, but it wasn't around in 1861.
Mississippi, late April, 1862...and that's when it got burned...it had no operational engines or guns. So, prolly wouldn't have been operational till 63.
Tennessee, launched in Feb 1863, but had no guns etc, became operational in Feb 1864. WTH its fighting in 1861 in this game of RISK.

All of these ships seem to have capabilities far greater than they should. Are the designers aware of the nature of these ships? They were jury rigged ships, that could barely be steered, powered etc, but had extremely highly motivated crews. They did some awesome things, but the 1861 CSA naval capabilities this game allows are fantasy.

Interesting. if what you say is true than I agree they should be at least far less powerful.