Wondering

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Wondering

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Wondering

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Wondering - 1/14/2007 1:55:54 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

Could somebody explain that why in my PBEM I playing as Union with advanced rules I lose every battle against Confederate losing 16000 men while rebels lose something like 1000 men?

Yes in every battle I have fielded more men than confederate in one battle where I lost 16000 men I fielded twice as much men�s than confederate.

As a result Union battle casualties are 40 larger than Confederate battle casualties. So one killed confederate soldier has killed 40 union soldiers on average. Did they have assault rifles or what?

Yes I have upgraded guns as much as I have could have also made extra arsenals and improved gun tech and use money to buy guns.

Yes 95% of my troops had minimum quick combat rating 2 guns and 20% of my troops even better guns than that. To get these guns I had to bring my economical advancement halt for long times.

Yes I mustered lots of more troops almost as much as I can every turn but still am not able to keep up number of men�s that confederate can field and soon confederate have larger amount of troops than Union.

Yes I attach all generals to my containers I have used them all as fast as I could.

So far only battles I have won was the battles where my army of 5 full divs attacked confederate division so confederate lost 3000 and I lost 1000 men.

As a conclusion I don�t know other strategy to survive longer while Confederate beats me than avoid battles with confederate armies but it has bad points confederate is able raze half of union cities and kill whole Union economy and bring it under Confederate economy.

< Message edited by Jakerson -- 1/14/2007 2:11:04 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 5:23:25 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

The new patch and the more historical scenario being introduced should help to change this although I understand the CSA will still retain some opening command and morale advantages.

The key combat test for me is whether a larger, better armed union army has any reasonable chance of defeating an inferior confederate force in battle in southern territory. Its fine if better leaders, fortifications, terrain and home advantages help to even things out for the south just so long as they don't give the Confederacy overwhelming advantages as seems to be the case at present.

Its ironic, normally I would expect to play the CSA by choice (mainly because they are the underdogs) yet with FOF I have tended to play the Union because of the game weighting against them.

We shall have to see how the morale rules pan out in the new patch. Even though favouring the south I can't go along with the premise that all southern troops at the start of the war were superior to their northern foes (although southern cavalry were generally superior, but so was northern artillery). Indeed in the west fighting quality seemed fairly equal with northern numbers, riverine support and better strategic focus making the difference.

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 2

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 5:39:45 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
Could somebody explain that why in my PBEM I playing as Union with advanced rules I lose every battle against Confederate losing 16000 men while rebels lose something like 1000 men?

How much attention do you pay to your disposition and strategic supply? These are both crucial to battle performance and are often overlooked. Also, note that if the CSA has been winning, their disposition will be way up. Your best bet to break a string of victories is to lure them to attack you on good ground of your choosing, preferably with a fort in the province as well.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 3

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 5:58:25 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

Problem for me is that I had no idea that Union troops as a whole are so weak so I trusted that when I buy guns for everyone, field more troops than enemy and use leaders when possible I would have fair chance instead of total massacre of my troops. I feel that as results are what they are my army is mostly spear armed Zulu troops that storm Confederate positions like in the Rocke Drift.

How I know when my troops have reasonable chances of defeating Rebels instead of sending troops in randomly and hoping that disaster won�t come this time again?

One thing probably caused this disaster partially as I allowed use of non random stats so Rebel player could use their best general instantly R. E Lee without taking risk of having bad generals while My general was only above average ones not bad not good types but still best that Union had available at that time.

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 4

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 6:20:15 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
How much attention do you pay to your disposition and strategic supply? These are both crucial to battle performance and are often overlooked. Also, note that if the CSA has been winning, their disposition will be way up. Your best bet to break a string of victories is to lure them to attack you on good ground of your choosing, preferably with a fort in the province as well.

All my armies all 3 of them that took part of combat against one confederate army had Normal dispositions and after the disasters I retreated deeply in union territory to recover couple turns.

Now in the last turn Confederate army in the east have been sitting in my area 2 turns as it is fortified it is still my area and I send 4 armies (over 200 000 men) against him as I cant afford him to stay in my territory he razed 3 cities virtually all my research in all other areas than weapons and iron production is gone I still have good production at other resources.

My governors are angry as last 10 turns all my moneys have gone buying guns and for supply and diplomacy because of massive mustering I need just to be able to have more troops on the field than CSA I can�t meet governors request as I have no money to buy mansions.

CSA was able to avoid combat this turn and now all my 200 000 men four armies sit same terrotory with him have very low strategic supply levels something like 3 because too many troops at same territory but how I could send less troops to same territory as they had no chance at all otherwise or not even when I send everything I have against him.

I fear that this last coming fourth big battle makes it possible confederate to raze whole union economy of the map after he has massacred my armies fourth time and then he conquer whole Union as sign of total victory.

< Message edited by Jakerson -- 1/14/2007 6:40:51 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 5

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 6:45:43 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Jakerson,

Definitely don't engage in battle if you have gotten as low as 3 Strategic Supply, but I understand what you are saying about your previous frustrations. The next patch should mitigate the extreme results somewhat, but there can still come a point in a grand strategic game where your opponent simply holds all the cards.

My suggestion for the future would be to focus on the defensive, particularly in the East, as the Union and force him to pay for each engagement. Realize also that it is costing him to keep his armies on the offense in terms of supply and there will come a point where he should be weakened by constant operations in terms of supply, attrition and disease.

Right now, I can only wish you good luck and hope the next campaign goes better for you. I agree that you might try random/hidden stats next time to make it a bit more difficult for your opponent to immediately know who to promote.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 6

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 7:12:06 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

These extreme results are not problem in detailed combat as you could maneuvers your troops more cautiously if you wish to compensate risks and avoid too intense combat.

For Instant combat I would hope some slider where you could control how aggressively your troops try engage combat. Low aggressiveness means lower casualties and lower risk for total disaster while high aggressiveness means chance of crashing victory but larger chance for total disaster.

For example something like:

Low aggressiveness means that your troops only move fire range and skirmish with enemy but stay otherwise defensiveness and let the enemy to get a risk of charging against your guns.

Medium aggressiveness means same but your troops charge if they see opportunity for it.

Full aggressiveness means that your troop�s pressure enemies moving close range skirmish and charge recklessly break the enemy.

These extreme results worked better in Crown of Glory where you could surrender and it was not total end of game. Even weakened you always had ability surrender and get breathing time for rebuild and even if extremely weaken diplomacy gave chance build coalitions. Here you dont have same chance and losing major battle also means losing huge portition of your economy becouse of razing and rebuild is very hard as ruins counts as buildings if big city is razed to ground you need 5-6 mansions just to cover ruins its lots of money as it rise 12 DIVS. Currently it�s very hard to get breathing time after defeat without having 2 cities economy razed to ground while you recover I hope at least ability to turn off plundering.

< Message edited by Jakerson -- 1/14/2007 7:26:05 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 7

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 7:17:33 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Yes, I see your point. You could do that to a degree in Quick Battle by choosing your deployment and focusing your units on Defend rather than Attack or Charge. Unfortunately, since PBEMs are resolved "auto" that isn't under your control. I'll ask Eric if there's anything that can be done in the PBEM system to allow a bit more direction, but I can't make any promises.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 8

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 8:53:44 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

For Instant combat I would hope some slider where you could control how aggressively your troops try engage combat. Low aggressiveness means lower casualties and lower risk for total disaster while high aggressiveness means chance of crashing victory but larger chance for total disaster.

Erik Rutins

Yes, I see your point...... I'll ask Eric if there's anything that can be done in the PBEM system to allow a bit more direction, but I can't make any promises.

Good idea if its possible to implement.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 9

RE: Wondering - 1/14/2007 9:49:24 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

Yeah option to have at some control over instant battles PBEM games would be really cool. This slider could be also be something like rout, defend, attack, charge this determine how aggressively your army do if battle happens during turn update.

We have slider to control Sieges why not to have it for instant battles too so Players can feel more control over the battles in PBEM games witch currently seems to be most popular playing type.

I would also hope to have some function to sue for peace trough diplomacy and grant victory to other player in human vs. human games so you have good way to end desperate games rather than keep going without chances. Peace negotiations between players, surrender or even unconditional surrender would be cooler way to end a game than scored victory.

I wish there could be someday function like this player to player diplomacy. Diplomacy was very nicely done in Grown of Glory I don�t see any reason why it should not be in FoF even when there is two sides they still could have cease fires and other negotiations.

< Message edited by Jakerson -- 1/14/2007 10:05:16 PM >

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 10

RE: Wondering - 1/15/2007 1:49:22 AM

jack616

Posts: 17
Joined: 1/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

My suggestion for the future would be to focus on the defensive, particularly in the East, as the Union and force him to pay for each engagement

Well...isn't that sort of the problem that ppl are having? I mean...Jakerson is playing as the Union.... practically by defition he HAS to be on the offensive... but he's being instructed to play defensive to win? If thats the case (even with all the other play balancing issues aside), and its the only way for Jakerson to succeed..isn't he playing a "hypothetical civil war" perhaps one based on a Harry Turtledove knockoff, and not a game based on history?

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 11

RE: Wondering - 1/15/2007 1:56:37 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jack616
Well...isn't that sort of the problem that ppl are having?� I mean...Jakerson is playing as the Union.... practically by defition he HAS to be on the offensive... but he's being instructed to play defensive to win?� If thats the case (even with all the other play balancing issues aside), and its the only way for Jakerson to succeed..isn't he playing a "hypothetical civil war" perhaps one based on a Harry Turtledove knockoff, and not a game based on history?

My goodness, I'm really starting to feel like folks are waiting to jump on my words. No, it's just a matter of strategy. Historically, the Union took the offensive early in the East and was beaten multiple times. In general, the East remained largely stalemated for much of the war. The West, historically and in this game, is the theater that has more offensive possibilities. You can still win in the East, but for someone looking for advice I would say go on defense in the East and go on offense in the West.

In Jakerson's case, I was giving him advice based on the horrible situation he is already in. I don't know how he got there, but I know he's there. In that situation, my advice would absolutely be to maximize your advantages by playing defensively until you can give your opponent a reverse and shift the initiative.

The Union can absolutely defeat the Confederacy in this game, with the default settings, but it's a challenge and we are still at the point where many players are still playing their first campaigns and learning a lot about what not to do along the way.

So, how about giving us your advice for what you would tell the Union to do if in Jakerson's position?

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to jack616)

Post #: 12

RE: Wondering - 1/15/2007 3:20:35 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Yesterday I completed my third game as the Union (first sergeant, advanced rules, QB), doing better each time. When the game ended, I had eliminted all rebel armies except ANV, was halfway down the Mississippi, had run an army through Atlanta to the sea and was besieging Savannah, and had run another army (with Grant commanding) through Knoxville to Abingdon which was about to join with A of the Potomac to invade Lynchburg. Not a win, but beginning to get close, and got some ideas for doing it better next time.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 13

RE: Wondering - 1/15/2007 10:04:18 PM

christof139

Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

The USA was on the defensive several times in the East, the West, and the Trans Miss, so in a game, there may be times when the USA historically is on the defensive.

Chris

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 14

RE: Wondering - 1/16/2007 1:18:26 AM

rook749

Posts: 1105
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

My goodness, I'm really starting to feel like folks are waiting to jump on my words. No, it's just a matter of strategy. Historically, the Union took the offensive early in the East and was beaten multiple times. In general, the East remained largely stalemated for much of the war. The West, historically and in this game, is the theater that has more offensive possibilities. You can still win in the East, but for someone looking for advice I would say go on defense in the East and go on offense in the West.

Erik, please don't feel that way your feedback is great. I do agree with Erik in hindsight its makes more sense for the Union to advance carefully in the East. Using maneuver more and a straight line/brute force advance less until the Army of the Potomac can be brought closer to the skill of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Rook

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 15