Insanity

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Insanity

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 >> Insanity

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Insanity - 9/8/2007 8:15:43 PM

sirduke_slith

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

While playing the union which i do rarely, i found some impossibilities during my game. (i have will not finish the game, it is currently in 1864). I didn't put this under the beta testing because i am not sure if this is a real problem to do with the patch (or at all) or me being picky.
First and most important one is instant battles. I always do these because i dislike the longer detailed battles. I say about 75-85 percent of the time i lose with two or three times the causalities they suffered. I kept playing no matter and they soon retreated my oncoming huge armies into thier territories. (avoiding battle) I kept attacking Richmond and Suffered horribly. Since they were retreating constanly they gave up many cities along the way, the only reason that i kept playing. The more recent battles are the reason i am writing this. One of the worst examples was that I had 375000 men atttacking Lee in Mississippi he had about 70000 men. My men ( i am sure his were of good quality as well) were of good quality and perfectly equipped. i lost and suffered some 15000 to his ten thousand. THis is not only insane but how is it possible. I love this game, but if you have 375000 men, how in the hell can you lose all the time with horrible causualites!

Post #: 1

RE: Insanity - 9/8/2007 8:21:29 PM

sirduke_slith

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

Sorry the next is emapcipating, i emancipate the slaves and within a year all that was gained diplomatically was negated ( ihad full support to all three powers money wise), england soon joined the war, this occured in the end of 1863 but i kept playing becasue at this point the AI for somereason abonded richmond all together and i captured it.
The last is when confederate (and british) divisions can infiltrate my territory (abondoing their supply lines) and go behind all of my armies and siege cities and still attack and defeat superior armies, i lost cario, st. louis, davenport, and philedalphia this way. I am dissapointed at these turn of events but foolishly i cont. on unitl the last defeat described above. How are all of these things possible? I have played the union before and never encountered these problems. Am i simply overreactin to my inability to play the union correctly? Or is this really a problem with the recent patch?

< Message edited by savedbythrbell -- 9/8/2007 9:20:46 PM >

(in reply to sirduke_slith)

Post #: 2

RE: Insanity - 9/8/2007 9:57:58 PM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

I don't think it has anything to do with the patch to be honest. For instant battles, I believe there is a limit to the number of units that can get on the battlefield. So to some extent, your manpower advantage was nullified. Also, even if your units are of better quality, if you are fighting on their territory especially with forts in it, they will get a pretty big defensive bonus. Third, with that many men, you should be able to wear them down attacking several turns in a row if you have your replacements and supply set up correctly. You will eventually win that battle.

For diplomacy, it sounds a bit like bad luck but also the CSA may have had a governor supporting english diplomacy. Also, if you lost several major battles, that also swings diplomacy.

I've won Southern Steel as both sides using Instant Battle only and there are only ever two constants, nothing plays the same between games except for the AI covering Richmond/Washington. ;)

(in reply to sirduke_slith)

Post #: 3

RE: Insanity - 9/8/2007 10:38:41 PM

sirduke_slith

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

Thanks for the response, i can see how the diplomacy could change so quickly since i lost almost all the battles (but i turned the governers off). There were no forts where i was attacking and i had been following and attacking Lee all the way back to Cairo (which they sieged and captured) i had attacked a half a dozen times up to that point, as for reinforcments i had plenty of, i recieved 55000 per turn. (i like camps!) supply was a little bit of a problem but after i captured jackson and new orleans i was good, oh well, i guess i will just stick with playing the confederacy, i already started another game and i am doing quite well.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 4

RE: Insanity - 9/8/2007 11:30:05 PM

sirduke_slith

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

One more question, why is there a limit as to how many troops can be inculded in an instant battle? just curious, seems kind of odd.

(in reply to sirduke_slith)

Post #: 5

RE: Insanity - 9/9/2007 12:42:00 AM

madgamer2

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline

I find this exchange very interesting because before the patch I found that large yank armies did not lead to victory but just the reverse. With the high population and rich economy large armies are not effective. If you add in an increase in the power rating you get armies on both sides that are quite large. I t also seems to me that to win the north one needs to play the detailed battle because it is easier to dupe the AI and win than going with instant battle.
As my main computer is in the shop I am playing on my backup system which does not have enough memory yet to play FoF with full graphics and I do not like the low graphic format for detailed battle. So playing the game with the patch will have to wait a few more days (SIGH).
It is hard to win with the north early on unless you use detailed battle and the convoluted victory conditions made it hard to win at all. I have heard from my friend who loves this game that the patch makes things much better so I will have to reserve my own opinion till I can play with the patch
next week.
BTW it is just my opinion but if detailed battle is not your thing then you might be better off playing AACW.

Madgamer

(in reply to sirduke_slith)

Post #: 6

RE: Insanity - 9/9/2007 12:45:27 AM

Erik Rutins

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

Instant Battles are actually run using the Quick Battle system, just without displaying the battle, so they have the same limitations as the Quick Battle system as far as how many units can actually participate. In a way, this is not entirely unrealistic since it would have been next to impossible to coordinate 375,000 men in the Civil War era, but I agree that we should allow for some provision for the extra troops since they do get to participate in detailed battles. For now, your best bet is to fight crucial and very large battles using the Detailed Battles system.

_____________________________

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 madgamer2)

Post #: 7

RE: Insanity - 9/9/2007 1:55:51 AM

sirduke_slith

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

i never used to like the detailed battles because i found them too complicated, but the last time i actually played it was a few months after the game came out, i think i will try them again and learn completely how to use them, this would most likely solve the problems i have been having thanks for all the responses, i might try and look at AACW as well and see if i like that better.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 8

RE: Insanity - 9/9/2007 4:26:55 AM

Erik Rutins

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

As with the rest of the game, detailed battles have improved quite a bit since the initial release. Turn the Combat Reports On in the Advanced Options so you can see exactly what modifiers are being applied in combat to help you get a feel for things. I think you'll enjoy it.

As far as AACW goes, you also can't go wrong with that one, each has a different feel and focus but both games are worth having.

_____________________________

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 sirduke_slith)

Post #: 9

RE: Insanity - 9/9/2007 4:34:33 AM

sirduke_slith

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

Thanks again, i am starting a battle as we speak as the confederacy. Good luck to me!

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 10

RE: Insanity - 9/9/2007 7:54:43 PM

ericbabe

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

Large army sizes have been one of those game design areas where we've never been able to find rules that please everyone. On one end of the spectrum, there are people who don't want any battles that are more than 10% larger than the largest battle of the era; for the Civil War that's about 200,000 total troops, or about 100,000 per side. On the other end of the spectrum, there are players who hate having any limitations on the number of troops they can effectively bring to a battle. For Crown of Glory we had much more restrictive battle limits than we do for FOF, in a mountainous region like Switzerland players could only bring about 40,000 men to a battle; I think we had about just as many players who wanted even tighter restrictions as we had players who wanted no restrictions at all.

Personally I tend to agree more with players who want tighter restrictions -- it just wasn't logistically possible to bring almost 400,000 men to one battle, and even marching with 100,000 men was often stretching logistics capabilities to the limit, and I think it makes the game more interesting when there are diminishing returns to the efficiency of attacking with large stacks. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to add game options to allow players to customize this, and to add better in-game messages explaining the current battle limits that exist in the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to sirduke_slith)

Post #: 11

RE: Insanity - 9/9/2007 8:33:39 PM

sirduke_slith

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

that makes sense to customize it (so everyone is happy). But the US numerical advantage, how does that work with such limitations. Their vast population levels can only be used to only a certain point. Currently what is the limit on battle limitiations for instant battle?

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 12

RE: Insanity - 9/10/2007 2:17:22 AM

madgamer2

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline

I could not agree more. The same people who scream about such things as army size are the same people who want there cake and eat it to. They say they want a civil war game but don't want any restrictions. I like FoF and when my system comes back from the shop I will play with the patch And see what happens. I like FoF but it seems to me that it is more of a "Roll your own" kind of game set in the civil war period, a kind of Civilization meets the ACW kind of game. This is not bad but is more attuned to players who like a wide open system.
I do like picking the rules I want and using the hidden stats because it makes the game a bit more in the dark if you don't know who will rise to the leadership role. With AACW the game puts you in a situation where you find yourself dealing with a simulation of the way it was.

So all in all both ARE great games with there own view of the Civil War. I am wondering what Gary G has in store for us with his up coming Civil War game. WitP meets the civil war? It will be interesting for sure.

Madgamer

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 13

RE: Insanity - 9/10/2007 3:05:36 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: savedbythrbell

that makes sense to customize it (so everyone is happy). But the US numerical advantage, how does that work with such limitations. Their vast population levels can only be used to only a certain point. Currently what is the limit on battle limitiations for instant battle?

Well, as I said if you really want to, you should be able to keep fighting each turn and if you are resupplying your army, then you should eventually wear them down. Alternatively, you could try to split your Army in two and use the other one to go draw the CSA away from his defensive position. You might be able to dupe him into attacking you in a good position or leave the territory you were trying to capture or if nothing else, you can go on a rampage using the original army to pin him in place and the other army to capture solitary forts or cities. There's lots you can do with an army that size!

(in reply to sirduke_slith)

Post #: 14

RE: Insanity - 9/11/2007 5:59:44 PM

General Quarters

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

Not sure if this is exactly on point, but I enjoy watching QBs, the troops rally, etc. I find that I get more people actually on the field, not just in reserve, when I keep some of my forces in an adjacent area and then bring them in at the beginning as reinforcements.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 15