Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems

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 >> Public Beta Feedback >> Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/8/2007 9:41:36 PM

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline

This patch is much better than the original.

I am playing the Sergeant Major level of the beta patch and have noted the following problems consistently appearing:

1. In quick combat mode the calvary is just too powerful from the confederate perspective. In one instance a single calvary unit routed three infantry, one calvary and one artillery Union units. Most unrealistic. I note the computer usually has the Confederate calvary charging and when that occurs, the calvary and Confederates always win. And even outnumbered 2 to 1 (40,000 to 20,000). Not what actually happened in the civil war. This would be true in the Napoleonic era when calvary was very powerful and muskets did not have the range of Springfields. But in the civil war era almost every occurrence of calvary charges against infrantry (and cannister firing artillery) led to complete disaster for the calvary. Rather, the calvary of course was used for screening the enemy and helping to find suitable ground for the commanders to deploy the army corps. Which brings me to the detailed battles.

2. The problem here is similar. The detailed battles tend to play out like Napoleonic battles. Individual infantry units tend to charge and move like the Napoleonic infantry. Again, American guns were far more accurate and deadly and as a result the infantry should be standing at a distance volleying until fatigue or fear sets in. Then, they charge. Also, I note that the armies do not take proper advantage of terrain as they could be doing. And here is where experienced calvary would come in. If an army has calvary brigades with good experience, the computer should react to that by placing an army in favorable terrain. That is what calvary did in the American Civil War.

3. The interface has some problems though for the most part it plays smoothly. Sometimes it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to move a corps, army or division next to a fort or city for purposes of attack. Also, it can also be bothersome trying to move brigades into containers as any path chosen will not remotely be near the container. Can't understand that.

4. You did a good job of toning down the Confederate pillaging but too good. There was only one instance of pillaging in three years in my game although it resulted appropriately in the pillager being killed. There can be a little more pillaging but hopefully with similar chances of pillagers being eliminated thus keeping that threat down.

Post #: 1

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/8/2007 11:52:58 PM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RB
1. In quick combat mode the calvary is just too powerful from the confederate perspective. In one instance a single calvary unit routed three infantry, one calvary and one artillery Union units. Most unrealistic. I note the computer usually has the Confederate calvary charging and when that occurs, the calvary and Confederates always win. And even outnumbered 2 to 1 (40,000 to 20,000). Not what actually happened in the civil war. This would be true in the Napoleonic era when calvary was very powerful and muskets did not have the range of Springfields. But in the civil war era almost every occurrence of calvary charges against infrantry (and cannister firing artillery) led to complete disaster for the calvary. Rather, the calvary of course was used for screening the enemy and helping to find suitable ground for the commanders to deploy the army corps. Which brings me to the detailed battles.

What was the relative quality/disposition of the different units involved and what was their armament? Did the CSA unit also have a general along? The best way to see what's going on is to turn on the attack report, then you can see if you had bad luck or the enemy is really just that good.

quote:

2. The problem here is similar. The detailed battles tend to play out like Napoleonic battles. Individual infantry units tend to charge and move like the Napoleonic infantry. Again, American guns were far more accurate and deadly and as a result the infantry should be standing at a distance volleying until fatigue or fear sets in. Then, they charge. Also, I note that the armies do not take proper advantage of terrain as they could be doing. And here is where experienced calvary would come in. If an army has calvary brigades with good experience, the computer should react to that by placing an army in favorable terrain. That is what calvary did in the American Civil War.

Hm, I'm seeing them trading volleys in line in my battles. Cavalry does allow you to win the pre-battle scouting checks, which let you both choose your terrain and also one of various other options, such as surveillance, surprise/flank attacks, etc.

quote:

3. The interface has some problems though for the most part it plays smoothly. Sometimes it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to move a corps, army or division next to a fort or city for purposes of attack. Also, it can also be bothersome trying to move brigades into containers as any path chosen will not remotely be near the container. Can't understand that.

It would be helpful if you could give a bit more detail here. On the former, I assume this is in a crowded proving and it's tough to find a spot where the cursor has a free are and changes to "Go", but I'm not sure about the latter. Putting brigades into containers seems really easy to me - just point at the container and wait for the mouse to turn into the down arrow before clicking.

quote:

4. You did a good job of toning down the Confederate pillaging but too good. There was only one instance of pillaging in three years in my game although it resulted appropriately in the pillager being killed. There can be a little more pillaging but hopefully with similar chances of pillagers being eliminated thus keeping that threat down.

Are you referring to Raiders/Partisans here or to military units Plundering?

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 RB)

Post #: 2

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/9/2007 3:41:54 AM

Icelandair

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/29/2006
Status: offline

Calvary was the hill that Christ was crucified on. Cavalry are men on horses in the army.

(in reply to RB)

Post #: 3

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/9/2007 12:42:53 PM

christof139

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

Actually, there were quite a few instances of successful mounted Cavalry charges against Infantry and Arty. in the ACW.

Chris

_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Icelandair)

Post #: 4

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 4:03:22 AM

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline

Eric, in answer to your responses (and to the wisecrack from Icelandair).

Icelandair, it was Good Friday when I played that out and wrote the review. I had no business doing either on Good Friday so it was I guess a freudian slip of some kind. Hopefully a Godly one. Ha ha.

Eric,

Answer to Answer One: The Union troops were obviously green but that doesn't matter because George Armstrong Custer couldn't attack two infantry units, an artillery unit and a cavalry unit causing them to route. It was like this, the battle began and was over in two seconds. They routed without firing. The AI's cavalry unit must have had an armored vehiicle from Koger's Total Operation of Art of Warfare attached. It just doesn't seem accurate.

Answer to Answer No. Two: I was not aware the cavalry was doing that in the game. Good job.

Answer to Answer No. Three: Putting brigages into a container is easy. I agree. What sometimes happens is I cannot move brigages anywhere near a container to put them in. That is, the path to the container is not an accepted path to the computer. This makes no sense because the container was placed there as an accepted path. The brigade (or artillery piece) path offered by the computer can sometimes be nowhere near the container. Besides, no confederate forces are around so it seems problematical. I will save a file and upload it to show you.

Answer to No. Four: I was referring to Raiders/Partisans.

(in reply to christof139)

Post #: 5

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 4:33:11 AM

Moltke71

Posts: 1253
Joined: 9/23/2000
Status: offline

#3 Have ypu tried auto-join?

_____________________________

Jim Cobb

(in reply to RB)

Post #: 6

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 8:53:47 AM

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline

Yes Bismarck. The concern isn't with moving brigades into containers as much as moving anything. Sometimes the interface just doesn't allow you to move very well whether it be containers or brigades of some sort. In addition, has anyone noticed that sometimes (when the foraging screen is on) when moving a cursor around the map and one has clicked somewhere on the map it begins dragging around a window and nothing can be done to stop it other than ending one's turn. Has anyone noticed this?

(in reply to Moltke71)

Post #: 7

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 10:23:55 AM

christof139

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

The game allows me to move Brigades 3, 4 and 5 Provinces to a Container. I then put the Brigades in the Container but the next turn those Brigades are either not in the Province that the game allowed me to move them too or in the Province with the Container but not in the Container. Same for Generals.

Also, Generals not in Containers or just put into a Container get left behind in Provinces that I have been kicked out of by the opposition.

Gets frustrating.

Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to RB)

Post #: 8

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 2:16:05 PM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RB
Yes Bismarck. The concern isn't with moving brigades into containers as much as moving anything. Sometimes the interface just doesn't allow you to move very well whether it be containers or brigades of some sort.

I'm really just not seeing this - can you explain more what is preventing you from moving them? It's a snap for me to move them manually and the put them into containers and auto-join should make that easy as well.

quote:

In addition, has anyone noticed that sometimes (when the foraging screen is on) when moving a cursor around the map and one has clicked somewhere on the map it begins dragging around a window and nothing can be done to stop it other than ending one's turn. Has anyone noticed this?

No, I haven't seen that at all. Will try to duplicate.

_____________________________

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 RB)

Post #: 9

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 2:18:25 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Chris,

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
The game allows me to move Brigades 3, 4 and 5 Provinces to a Container. I then put the Brigades in the Container but the next turn those Brigades are either not in the Province that the game allowed me to move them too or in the Province with the Container but not in the Container. Same for Generals.

That's because the game does initiative checks for all movement. Being able to theoretically move a distance won't guarantee that you'll get there. A military group commanded by Robert E. Lee, for example, has the highest chance of continually moving its maximum distance, but a random brigade does not.

quote:

Also, Generals not in Containers or just put into a Container get left behind in Provinces that I have been kicked out of by the opposition.

If they are left behind, it means they didn't make it into the container before hte container retreated. They're not captured like other units because of that though. Just move them back to its new location and put them in.

_____________________________

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 christof139)

Post #: 10

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 2:49:20 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

You can play with the Initiative Checks turned off, so that every move is always successful.

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 11

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 3:00:31 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Chris,

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
The game allows me to move Brigades 3, 4 and 5 Provinces to a Container. I then put the Brigades in the Container but the next turn those Brigades are either not in the Province that the game allowed me to move them too or in the Province with the Container but not in the Container. Same for Generals.

That's because the game does initiative checks for all movement. Being able to theoretically move a distance won't guarantee that you'll get there. A military group commanded by Robert E. Lee, for example, has the highest chance of continually moving its maximum distance, but a random brigade does not.

That's why when I'm playing I wind delaying my actions for the container a turn or two unitl I know that all the brigades or lower containers have joined up. I learned early on that just because I could plan out all my moves and place units in my corps and armys didn't mean they would actually arrive as planned. I wound up too many times marching that corps or army off to battle before it's troops had even arrived...

So now I don't move the primary container out on the same turn that I'm trying to move units into it. Remember the moves you are making are "planned" moves... not the actual moves. They may not happen do to initiative checks. Which can make for some very interesting situations... I just hope John Wayne and the Cavalry show up in time...

Dude

< Message edited by dude -- 4/10/2007 3:01:36 PM >

_____________________________

�Ifs defeated the Confederates�� U.S.Grant

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 12

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 4:02:55 PM

christof139

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

quote:

That's because the game does initiative checks for all movement. Being able to theoretically move a distance won't guarantee that you'll get there. A military group commanded by Robert E. Lee, for example, has the highest chance of continually moving its maximum distance, but a random brigade does not.

No, I play with initiative checks turned off, so that is not the case. The game is allowing brigades to move more hexes than they should be able to, and then allows them to be put in containers, but when the next turn comes about the brigades are not in the containers and sometimes not even in the same province as the container, and this also happens with generals.

Another subject: previously I made mention of the early to midwar Hall's Breechloading Carbine, and you mentioned that the game had a breechloading carbine weapons category, which it does. However, the Hall's was an EARLY breechloading carbine that was OK, but did have problems, and cannot be considered of the same quality and effectiveness as the LATTER and better functioning Joslyn's and Sharp's and Burnside's etc. So, your remark that implies the Hall's can be considered a weapon in the game's Breechloading Carbine category is not quite true. The Hall's would be more in a class with the Columbus Carbine or Richmond Sharps. Thousands were used, mainly by the USA forces. It is not at all necessary to specifically have the hall's in the game, it just adds flavor if it was a seperate weapon or mentioned in another weapon category or class. In fact, the US Army stopped using the Hall's breechloader and adapted the musketoon for its Dragoons in 1847. When the ACW started, the hall's were taken out of storage and issued to Cavalry units and remained in service unitl perhaps 1863 in the Trans Miss. and maybe later, I don't know offhand and it would take some digging to determine this, but it is not necessary for FoF unless more flavor is desired. The Hall's was the first breechloading long arm to be used by US forces starting in 1833, and was designed specifically for the Dragoons and the weapon also had a bayonet that I believe was permanently attached to the weapon in a manner similar to the Soviet SKS Carbine/Rifle and some models of the AK-47 except that the Hall's bayonet had a sliding mechanism and the SKS and AK-47 both have folding mechanisms for the bayonet.

So, the Hall's is actually a very historic and interesting weapon:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/fosc/weapons_info1.htm

Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 13

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 4:29:37 PM

christof139

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

Another site with pics of a mint and unfired Hall's Breechloader:

http://www.angelfire.com/oh3/civilwarantiques/hall.html

Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to christof139)

Post #: 14

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 6:24:34 PM

christof139

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

quote:

That's why when I'm playing I wind delaying my actions for the container a turn or two unitl I know that all the brigades or lower containers have joined up. I learned early on that just because I could plan out all my moves and place units in my corps and armys didn't mean they would actually arrive as planned. I wound up too many times marching that corps or army off to battle before it's troops had even arrived... So now I don't move the primary container out on the same turn that I'm trying to move units into it. Remember the moves you are making are "planned" moves... not the actual moves. They may not happen do to initiative checks. Which can make for some very interesting situations... I just hope John Wayne and the Cavalry show up in time...

Dude

Yeah, you're right, and I finally figured that out too, it's just that I sometimes forget to wait and get everything in order, but I have some interesting outcomes and dissapointing ones too, but what the heck anyway, all those screen troopies are just screen sprites anyway.

Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 15

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 6:52:24 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Chris,
From your description, it sounds like we could consider the Hall's to be one of the "improvised" weapons that cavalry have until they get something better. Does that sound right to you?

(in reply to christof139)

Post #: 16

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 7:22:25 PM

christof139

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

quote:

Chris,
From your description, it sounds like we could consider the Hall's to be one of the "improvised" weapons that cavalry have until they get something better. Does that sound right to you?

No. The Hall's was much better than an Improvised Weapon. I classify it with the Columbus, Richmond Sharps, and other lesser performing carbines or even with the muzzle loading carbines. Go peruse the links or do a quick Google search on the weapon, and you will see it is by no means an improvised weapon, and accounts I have read of its use in the ACW state that it performed generally well except for the problems that sometimes arose with it. It did not perform up to expectations, but it was quite passable as a decent weapon with decent range and stopping power.

Improvised weapons would be shotguns, flintlocks, single shot pistols, hunting arms, cut down muskets and rifles of various types, very shoddy muskets and rifles, and mixed weapons of these types. I don't know why the game has a Shotgun category, as Shotguns were improvised for military use.

A mention of the advanced design Hall's would be neat and flavorful in a Category such as 2nd Class Carbines, which would be slightly different for each side, or a Musketoon and 2nd Class Carbine category. The Hall's was afterall the first breechloader adapted by the USA military.

So, I think I made it clear I wan't asking for a seperate Hall's Carbine category since my English is very clear, nor does my short description insinuate it was or performed as an improvised weapon in any way. You just misinterpert things.

Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 17

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 9:09:02 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Right now, the starting Burnside Carbine serves this purpose for the Union, as does the Columbus/Richmond for the Confederates. The Breechloading Carbine category is for some of the better designs. I suppose we could add a note into the Burnside Carbine category to say it includes the Hall's, but I doubt they'd differe much in game terms.

Weren't you working on a modified guns file? How did that go?

_____________________________

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 christof139)

Post #: 18

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/10/2007 11:52:12 PM

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline

Eric, I can't explain it any better. It's just that moving options are a problem sometimes (but they are infrequent). The problem is trying to move a container or reinforcement to a reasonable area in a province to be in support or for sieging purposes. It's just that the options the computer gives you are not necessarily helpful. A better explanation would be it took me three turns to begin a siege near Frankfort (in single moves each time) because the paths the computer allowed my container to take were not in a proximate vicinity to begin the siege. I had to waste two turns approaching the siege point from two different directions when the container was next to the city all along. I think something in this line is understandable.

Another problem (though it is not a bug but a mere inconenience) involves the Join To feature. You know, when you're reinforcing a city, fort, fleet or container. Currently it is not alphabetized. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in another link. If so, I haven't seen it. It is sometimes frustrating looking for a unit or city or fleet to reinforce through this feature as they are not in alphabetical order. Can this be fixed?

But on the whole, the game plays very well now. It is much better.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 19

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/11/2007 12:59:36 PM

christof139

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

quote:

Right now, the starting Burnside Carbine serves this purpose for the Union, as does the Columbus/Richmond for the Confederates. The Breechloading Carbine category is for some of the better designs. I suppose we could add a note into the Burnside Carbine category to say it includes the Hall's, but I doubt they'd differe much in game terms.

Weren't you working on a modified guns file? How did that go?

Hi Erik and sorry for confusing you with the other Eric.

Yes, exactly, the Hall's doesn't affect the game at all, I just mentioned it because it was a unique weapon being that it was the first breechloader adapted by the US Army, and it did perform OK to a decent but not great degree. So, people were asking for flavorful info. and I thought the Hall's fit the bill very well. It is not a well known weapon even though there were a good number of them floating about, and was revolutionary at its time of production and introduction. It wasn't the first breechloader used in North America by any means, but the first mass produced breechloader and the first adapted by the US Army.

My Guns.txt modding stopped because of my Office '97 Excel problems. I have to get a newer Office verison, because as you know debugging text files can be very time consuming and maddening to say the least. Seems that the 97 version of Excel is not 100% compatible with WinXP and/or FoF files, so I have to get a newer used version which may happen next week when our compooter fellow returns from vacation. So, I will be getting a used office 2000 to 2007 or whatever copy soon.

My main concerns with the Guns.txt file are tweaking the ranges and power or firing effectiveness of weapons, changing descriptions, and even renaming some of the weapons classes, which I did already to some degree but have to find the file as I may have inadvertently erased it. For instance, there are two 10-inch Columbiads in tthe game and one is a Rodman, so this seems to be just a duplication to a degree of a weapons class and a waste of a weapons slot. The game's 10-inch Columbiad is more powerful than the Rodman Columbiad and that was not so. The earlier model Columbiads were shell guns that did not fire shot, and only 300 and some odd New Model 10-inch Columbiads capable of firing shot were produced, so I will combine these with the Rodman 10-inch New Model Columbiad into one class, while the old 10-ich Columbiad slot will be changed to represent both 8 and 10-inch early model Columbiads. Unless there is a way for modders to add new weapons, then jockeying weapons and weapons' classes around with new descriptions and stats is the only way to improve the historical accuracy of the Guns.txt file. As it stands now, the Guns.txt file is OK for those that are not too concerned with historical accuracy, but for many people with greater knowledge and understanding of ACW weapons then a quick fix is in order.

Same has been done with the old TS Battleground ACW and Nappy Wars games and most other games by many people/modders, and doing these things adds a great deal of historical flavor to games.

Games that have map and scenario editors sell much better than games that don't, and games that are greatly moddable also sell more and for a longer time than games that don't.

Check-out the Medieval Total War and Rome Total War forums and Mod Sites, and then there is Steel Panthers as great examples of games that were and are great and moddable.

There may be more money to be made marketting properly to educated and knowledgeable people than to plain and simple FPS-type game freaks and kids.

Chris

< Message edited by christof139 -- 4/11/2007 2:39:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 20

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/11/2007 11:40:18 PM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
Hi Erik and sorry for confusing you with the other Eric.

Apology accepted, it happens. I understand that it can be confusing with both of us replying all the time.

quote:

Yes, exactly, the Hall's doesn't affect the game at all, I just mentioned it because it was a unique weapon being that it was the first breechloader adapted by the US Army, and it did perform OK to a decent but not great degree. So, people were asking for flavorful info. and I thought the Hall's fit the bill very well. It is not a well known weapon even though there were a good number of them floating about, and was revolutionary at its time of production and introduction. It wasn't the first breechloader used in North America by any means, but the first mass produced breechloader and the first adapted by the US Army.

Yep, it's good info.

quote:

My Guns.txt modding stopped because of my Office '97 Excel problems. I have to get a newer Office verison, because as you know debugging text files can be very time consuming and maddening to say the least. Seems that the 97 version of Excel is not 100% compatible with WinXP and/or FoF files, so I have to get a newer used version which may happen next week when our compooter fellow returns from vacation. So, I will be getting a used office 2000 to 2007 or whatever copy soon.

Ah, Office 97 - yeah, I've been using Office XP and just upgraded to 2007. If you want, give me the changes you'd make with some source info and I'll review with Eric and incorporate everything we feel comfortable with. We already improved the guns file since the original release and we're certainly interested in making it as accurate as possible, while keeping the choices to a reasonable limit. I could see combining the Hall's and Burnside, etc.

quote:

My main concerns with the Guns.txt file are tweaking the ranges and power or firing effectiveness of weapons, changing descriptions, and even renaming some of the weapons classes, which I did already to some degree but have to find the file as I may have inadvertently erased it. For instance, there are two 10-inch Columbiads in tthe game and one is a Rodman, so this seems to be just a duplication to a degree of a weapons class and a waste of a weapons slot. The game's 10-inch Columbiad is more powerful than the Rodman Columbiad and that was not so. The earlier model Columbiads were shell guns that did not fire shot, and only 300 and some odd New Model 10-inch Columbiads capable of firing shot were produced, so I will combine these with the Rodman 10-inch New Model Columbiad into one class, while the old 10-ich Columbiad slot will be changed to represent both 8 and 10-inch early model Columbiads. Unless there is a way for modders to add new weapons, then jockeying weapons and weapons' classes around with new descriptions and stats is the only way to improve the historical accuracy of the Guns.txt file. As it stands now, the Guns.txt file is OK for those that are not too concerned with historical accuracy, but for many people with greater knowledge and understanding of ACW weapons then a quick fix is in order.

As I said above, we're welcome to all input into this. Note however, that the ratings were based on a variety of factors and may not be as easy to reverse-engineer as you think. We did use historical sources to come up with the existing ratings, but if you've been looking into these for years there's no doubt you have some info we may not have considered. I think it makes sense to collaborate. If you'd like to see the default guns file improved further, please start a thread on that subject in this sub-forum. I'd recommend focusing each post on either a weapon you think should be changed, with supporting info for the change, or removed, or added, etc. I can't promise we'll put all your suggestions in the default, but we'll read everything and combine it with our info to do the best we can.

I can also make a new file with all your changes for your own use if your version of Excel isn't cutting it, as a way of thanking you for any feedback.

quote:

Games that have map and scenario editors sell much better than games that don't, and games that are greatly moddable also sell more and for a longer time than games that don't.

Hm, I understand where that rule of thumb comes from, but it's not universally true. If a few other elements fall into place right, then yes, I agree (which is why FOF and many of our other games are highly moddable and/or have an editor).

quote:

There may be more money to be made marketting properly to educated and knowledgeable people than to plain and simple FPS-type game freaks and kids.

Hey, lots of educated and knowledgeable folks do also play FPSes! In any case, for these types of games, I probably agree, which is why we do market to wargamers rather than to the FPS crowd. In general though, the mainstream market is much larger.

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 christof139)

Post #: 21

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/12/2007 12:53:34 AM

christof139

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

Yeah, thanx.

Yeah, I can see perhaps in the Guns.txt file that it is connected to another file or files, and if I change the weapon's heading to 10-inch Columbiads to 8 and 10-inch Columbiads then it may not work unless other things in other files are changed, but I am going to try this soon, as I think I found the file I tinkered with. Seems I did anyway. The picture of the cannon in the purchase screen doesn'rt have to be changed at all for the 10-inch Columbiad, but the 9-inch Blakely can be changed and that may be a simple matter of just using a photo editor, I don't know but can try it. I get decent results doing BMP pics and I did make some siege and naval cannon before, so altering an existing pic is not too hard. i'm not real good at it but usually can make a passable and very decent pic, but not always.

Look at my avatar and the sternwheel Tinclad I made. I am going to do a review of the ships I made for the old TS BG games that Matrix is going to rerelease, with a Map Editor I AND MANY OTHERS hope for. The East Front 1 Map Editor can be used to complete most of a modded map for the ACW and Nappy War games, but additional work is required. I just left a message here in reply to X Legion concerning this.

I also got the Gunboats working for both sides in the old TS games, it was very obvious and simple how to do it but not anyone tried it but me. It's just that there is only one on screen Gunboat sprite for all the ships, and I never modded the sprite sheet or white ghost sprite sheet but may in the future. With the correct and updated tools and knowledge that Matrix Programmers and Graphics/Pixel People have, all this could be done very easily. There are only 6-directional positions needed for the sprites in the TS BG ACW and Nappy Wars games, the 6-major points of the compass.

Back to FoF, there isn't too much actually in the gus.txt file that IMHO can be changed, but somethings yes for sure, and those things are just text changes that I did have working for weapons ranges and effectiveness, at least the file seemed to work as I remember, but i didn't test it a lot. Excel 97 is having problems, and I have Win XP Home Ed. so I don't actually even know if I have Excel XP on it!! I should actually look.

Anyway, another newer version of Office 2003 or whatever will no doubt work fine, I just have to get the software, which software I could have already gotten but I have been being rotten and haven't gotten. IOTW, I have been just too lazy to go get it.

In FoF there is already a very good spread/choice of Arty., and I was very happy to see the 24-pdr Siege Gun for Field Siege Arty. along with the 8-inch Howitzer, the latter of which was not all that common. The other Howitzers are neat too, and 32-pdr. Hwtzrs. were used in the field, as at Antietam where there was one battery with the Yankees.

And yeah, I know that 'normal' people play FPS games, I just don't like them too much. I can throw bricks or something at one of my neighbors

I don't like and get the same effect anyway for free.

Of course I can also envision a Battery of the Washington Arty. or similar lined-up along my fence pointed that-a-way and can actually picture the wonderful and hilarious results as the down range neighbor and everything he owns is simply blasted into oblivion, blown away, a double and triple cannister Mr. Bragg at Buena Vista type of thing or thang. I'm not too concerned about my fence at all, nor this particular neighbor. My other neighbors are OK though, and I hope they don't get upset with the noise.

I better do that during the day so I don't wake people up at night, a brilliant idea. This last bit here is pretty funny.

Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 22

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/12/2007 8:10:46 PM

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline

Back to the interface issue. I purchased Crown of Glory the other day (very inteligent move on my part) and it's a very good game. But what is really good about it is the INTERFACE. It is very stable, I feel more so than Forge in that when moving troops the paths are designated by the computer and the move occurs with no problem. Very handsomely done. But in Forge, as discussed, the process of moving just seems to be jittery.

(in reply to christof139)

Post #: 23

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/12/2007 9:18:36 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RB

Back to the interface issue. I purchased Crown of Glory the other day (very inteligent move on my part) and it's a very good game. But what is really good about it is the INTERFACE. It is very stable, I feel more so than Forge in that when moving troops the paths are designated by the computer and the move occurs with no problem. Very handsomely done. But in Forge, as discussed, the process of moving just seems to be jittery.

One of the things I always like about CoG's interface was the way to transfer men between units. If I had some spare militia units I could transfer the manpower into an infantry unit to top the infantry unit off. I wish we could do that here with FoF. The camps are nice and being able to remove a unit and have it manpower distributed is ok, but being able to directly send needed manpower to a specific unit is better.

Dude

< Message edited by dude -- 4/12/2007 9:21:15 PM >

_____________________________

�Ifs defeated the Confederates�� U.S.Grant

(in reply to RB)

Post #: 24

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/12/2007 9:50:15 PM

christof139

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

quote:

One of the things I always like about CoG's interface was the way to transfer men between units. If I had some spare militia units I could transfer the manpower into an infantry unit to top the infantry unit off. I wish we could do that here with FoF. The camps are nice and being able to remove a unit and have it manpower distributed is ok, but being able to directly send needed manpower to a specific unit is better.

Dude

Same people that made COG made FoF (I think anyway), so maybe they'll incorporate the COG sysytem of troop replacement.

Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 25

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/17/2007 8:14:31 AM

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline

I hope so. COG just feels right.

(in reply to christof139)

Post #: 26

RE: Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems - 4/17/2007 3:47:39 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude
One of the things I always like about CoG's interface was the way to transfer men between units. If I had some spare militia units I could transfer the manpower into an infantry unit to top the infantry unit off. I wish we could do that here with FoF. The camps are nice and being able to remove a unit and have it manpower distributed is ok, but being able to directly send needed manpower to a specific unit is better.

We decided not to let players transfer strength between units as they could in CoG because we added the guns, attributes and special abilities and we were worried that allowing players to transfer strength would mean that players would always be transferring strength from the poorer units into the better equipped units and that this wouldn't be good for game balance, and it would encourage players obsessively to micromanage shifting lots of strength points around every turn.

You can disband brigades and their strength will be distributed to all the other brigades in their (directly attached) military group. The Quality is weighted-average, with a greater weight given to the Quality of the unit that receives the reinforcements (Quality is also a measure of the junior officer quality, and the junior officers in the receiving unit don't change when it receives replacements.)

Glad you'all like CoG. Are you not getting the movement arrows in FOF though?? The interface for moving should be pretty much the same as in COG, and we even added a little tooltip telling you which province a unit is moving to. The rivers do make movement a little more confusing in FOF, at least in places, but otherwise I *think* the interface is pretty much the same. We did redo the graphics for the movement arrows.

_____________________________

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 27

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback >> Calvary, Combat and Interface Problems

Page: [1]