Realism

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Realism

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 >> Realism

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Realism - 7/19/2008 6:53:53 PM

JeanUSARMYGUARD

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline

One problem I need to post.

The game is excellent, however I noticied during Tactical combat the Confederacy has a strong advantage at Normal or Easy level. One example is during a battle I was conducting in Fredricksburg... My forces outnumbered the Confederates almost 2 to 1. I was able to flank their position. I surrounded entire groups of brigades and single brigades. The problem I have is that I lost the battle when I should of won it. I surrounded nearly every Confederate Brigade with at least 3 - 4 brigades ... firing on them from all sides... and yet the amount of damage was minimal. I fired and charged with Fresh Brigades from even behind the Enemy brigade and yet lost 134 to their 2. Throwing volley after volley from behind, front, sides.... and half the time I suffered more losses. Reguardless of any units strength, morale, etc... if they are firing at the enemy from the rear... and take heavy losses... with the enemy brigade bearly getting hurt... a fix is needed.

When one of my brigades is surrounded and hit from all sides... they last maybe a turn or two... a enemy brigade and brigades lasted the onslaught of my forces for 10 - 20 turns.

Has anyone experienced a problem like this?

< Message edited by JeanUSARMYGUARD -- 7/19/2008 6:55:04 PM >

_____________________________

Visit The Glorious Cause @ http://www.thegloriouscause.us

Camp Smith, US ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Proud NRA Member

Post #: 1

RE: Realism - 7/19/2008 8:12:42 PM

Joram

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

Not only do Confederates start with a higher morale in general, I believe they (well, both sides really) get a morale bonus for fighting on home territory. You should expect to lose a few early battles until the morale of your troops improves. Even so, you'll probably always fight with a morale disadvantage as the north so you just need to rely on numbers and eventually superior weapons.

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 2

RE: Realism - 7/19/2008 8:42:08 PM

Gil R.

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

Using the "Attack Report" option is a good way of learning about what's happening in detailed battle, and can help you learn what you're doing right or wrong.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 3

RE: Realism - 7/19/2008 10:15:12 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeanUSARMYGUARD

One problem I need to post.

The game is excellent, however I noticied during Tactical combat the Confederacy has a strong advantage at Normal or Easy level. One example is during a battle I was conducting in Fredricksburg... My forces outnumbered the Confederates almost 2 to 1. I was able to flank their position. I surrounded entire groups of brigades and single brigades. The problem I have is that I lost the battle when I should of won it. I surrounded nearly every Confederate Brigade with at least 3 - 4 brigades ... firing on them from all sides... and yet the amount of damage was minimal. I fired and charged with Fresh Brigades from even behind the Enemy brigade and yet lost 134 to their 2. Throwing volley after volley from behind, front, sides.... and half the time I suffered more losses. Reguardless of any units strength, morale, etc... if they are firing at the enemy from the rear... and take heavy losses... with the enemy brigade bearly getting hurt... a fix is needed.

When one of my brigades is surrounded and hit from all sides... they last maybe a turn or two... a enemy brigade and brigades lasted the onslaught of my forces for 10 - 20 turns.

Has anyone experienced a problem like this?

I've never seen it that bad, I can have one of my better experienced brigades led by a decent general from a decent div in a decent corps in a decent army last some 10 turns with attacks from TWO units, but that would be max. However altering the morale of the South is no good imo, as the Union has advantage in numbers and economy, the Souths only advantage lies in morale and generals early on.
But again, what difficulty level? Higher difficulty means lower morale losses to the enemy, on full general I will only capture 1/5 brigades, the last 4 will fight to death.

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 4

RE: Realism - 7/20/2008 8:37:51 AM

moose1999

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

The game is designed so it's near impossible for the North the launch a successfull invasion of the South the first year.
Although I'm sure the experienced players do it all the time...

I, personally, like the big advantage the South has in the beginning in quality and morale.

Charging is dangerous business. I very rarely charge enemy units in formation with infantry, as it's a big gamble.
I know other players feel more comfortable doing it, though, so it is a valid tactic. Just be careful.

Your uneven results from fire-combat can have many explanations. The combat mechanics are wonderfully detailed.
As Gil said, turn on attack reports in the settings menu (accessed from the detailed battle map) to see whats going on.
And make sure, of course, that you have the latest patch.

And have fun!

< Message edited by briny_norman -- 7/20/2008 8:38:32 AM >

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 5

RE: Realism - 7/24/2008 5:31:05 AM

JeanUSARMYGUARD

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline

A few other problems Im encountering

- The Rebels seem to always have massive amounts of troops. As of mid 1862 I have less forces than they do. I have camps in many cities however none of my armies ever increase in size.

- Theres too many brigades that misinterpret movement commands.

- There are times when I place my cursor over a enemy or friendly brigade to either attack, resupply, etc. and click... nothing happens... I have to wait a bit, move the cursor throughout the screen then click

- My brigades always seem to be Out of Supply ... I have them usually at Normal Supply, or Low Supply

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 6

RE: Realism - 7/24/2008 9:46:22 AM

JeanUSARMYGUARD

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline

Another problem that affects gameplay ... is that when in Tactical combat... you are unable to move the screen North, South, East, West ... you must wait a few seconds... then try again, and again... and then it finally moves the screen ... however it is very sluggish.

* My PC is very well up to date with a good graphics cards and Ram. I can play PC titles with no problem or bad frame rate.

Also how is the South able to recover troops so fast. I defeated the Army of N. VA with 15,000 losses to them and 10,000 to mine. I had 5 turns or so before they returned... with more than they had before. Where are they getting these troops.

I believe the developers overestimated the Souths AI / Resources / strength.

Its unrealistic when you have a brigade in the field that cannot dig in... which has been done since the Revolutionary War. Also The South had old and primitive weapons throughout the war... how is it in this title... Their Brigades can outshoot mine, when mine have Springfield rifles. Another thing is and a major point is

The South always had trouble putting half or 3/4 of the men into the field than the Union. How is it in this title ... I am constantly facing nearly double confederate forces. I build camps and telegraphs constantly.

A patch is needed

_____________________________

Visit The Glorious Cause @ http://www.thegloriouscause.us

Camp Smith, US ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Proud NRA Member

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 7

RE: Realism - 7/24/2008 2:14:48 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

When I first got the game, and played the South, I had the same feeling. After five or six very bad losses, I started figuring out how it worked. You'll get to the point where you'll see how all the pieces fit together, AND what's important and not important.

For sure, stay out of Fredericksburg early in the game. It's almost always a victory for the South until much later in the game. Your best options are the Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia. The latter is more of a diversion, I've found.

Play the South a few times and see how the Union can crive you crazy. Once I played both sides a few times, I learned what their respective vulnerabilities are.

Give it a little more time. It's really not bad at all.

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 8

RE: Realism - 7/24/2008 2:26:18 PM

Ironclad

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

It sounds like you might be playing one of the more generous scenarios for the South. If you haven't done so already try Southern Steel or the non-balanced version of Coming Fury which have far more realistic troop levels and resources/population for each side. Lesser resources for the South in these also impact on their scope to build camps as quickly so reduce their speed of replacements. You do need to keep up regular camp building as well to ensure you maintain a lead in replacements - here the invalid camps upgrade is a real bonus but not if he gets it first.

I think the game has got it about right in terms of digging in on the battlefield as this wasn't common in the early part of the war. So in the game a very occasional initial unit will have the diggers special ability but widespread practice for your side will await the first hasty entrenchments upgrade. With The Union's greater resources you should be able to spend a lot more on research buildings (choosing University's sites where possible to get the extra research point) to improve the arrival time of needed upgrades.

Your slow screen speed is surprising - are you playing with the latest patches?

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 7/24/2008 2:39:11 PM >

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 9

RE: Realism - 7/24/2008 6:33:44 PM

ericbabe

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

Can you post a screenshot of an attack report showing how CSA brigades are out-shooting your USA brigades despite that you have better weapons, or when you are attacking from the rear? There are a number of factors that determine the results of each attack. If you post the screenshot of the attack report, we can see which factors are coming into play.

We have spent an enormous amount of time adjusting the combat numbers and testing their results based on enormous feedback from dozens of people with decades of wargaming experience, so my sense is that our combat numbers probably aren't really as bad as you are claiming they are.

As for the CSA producing many units, that's possible depending on which scenario you choose and which game setup options and difficulty level one picks -- there are many options for starting the game. However, with the options I choose, I don't really see this at all.

We originally allowed units to dig in more freely, but many many people thought it was not doctrinally historical to allow this, and so, based on overwhelming feedback, we changed the digging in rules.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 10

RE: Realism - 7/24/2008 6:42:42 PM

ericbabe

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

On my up-to-date gaming machine (quad core 2.66 GHz, 4GB) FOF runs very fast and smoothly. On some of the older basement computers it does run a little slower, but when I turn off some of the graphical options in detailed battle (shadows is a big one), then it runs well on those machines too.

_____________________________

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 11

RE: Realism - 7/24/2008 6:52:31 PM

Gil R.

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

JeanUSARMYGUARD,

As the others wrote, what you are experiencing with the large southern armies is a typical experience for many new players who are playing on levels and settings that make the CSA AI tougher to beat, are playing a "balanced" scenario, and/or are not employing the right strategies. If you read back in the forum you'll find a lot of discussion about this, and the threads in "The War Room" also have numerous tips for the northern player.

Regarding your claim that "I believe the developers overestimated the Souths AI / Resources / strength," I should point out that all of our economic data in the game -- for both the "balanced" (i.e., imbalanced, but not sharply imbalanced) and "imbalanced" economic scenarios -- come from census data and other historical sources. Settings can be changed to give the South more men and resources than it had, but our basic data are completely sound.

Another matter. You wrote: "Its unrealistic when you have a brigade in the field that cannot dig in... which has been done since the Revolutionary War." You don't say when in the game this is happening (or not happening), but my guess is that it is early in the game. To elaborate on what Eric wrote, at the beginning of the Civil War the troops DID NOT make use of field fortifications. It wasn't until the Peninsular Campaign that they did so, and they had to learn it, and not for many more months (or a year?) before the soldiers were so good that as soon as they came to a new defensive location they would start digging in without even the need for officers to oversee their activities. We reflect this by making the ability to dig in something that must be learned by most units, and believe that it would have been a very poor game design decision to have the ability to entrench there from the start. (Since you're working on your own Civil War computer game, you might want to look at the definitive study: Earl J. Hess, Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War: The Eastern Campaigns, 1861-1864. I read the whole book in doing research for FOF, and think so highly of it that we provide an Amazon link on our WCS homepage. Hess's next book, on field fortifications in the Overland Campaign, just came out, and I'm looking forward to reading it.)

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 7/24/2008 7:00:13 PM >

_____________________________

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 12

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 6:54:55 AM

JeanUSARMYGUARD

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline

First I would like to thank you ... for taking the time and responding to my post.

The focus of my grievance is toward the extreme disadvantages to The Union. I have read and understand the strategies needed to win the war as The Union, however I feel they may be too much.

I have played 3 levels of difficulty - Normal, Easy, Very Easy and all provide a great deal of difficulty to The Union that limits the funfactor extremely.

Amoung the issues

1. Nearly every brigade in detailed combat... whether small or large army... misinterprets commands constantly... nearly to the point that makes devising strategies very difficult.

2. One ocassion I invaded Fredricksburg with 100,000 men against 30,000 Confederates. These men were nearly all armed with Springfield rifles ... had top leaders... and had great disposition. However all this wasnt enough. Numerous brigades broke and the battle was lost, even though I had circled the Confederate army, inflicted massive losses and had Confederate brigades routing.

3. Other occassions I charged Confederate brigades from behind... and lost over 100 men to 8 of the enemy

4. Even in Very Easy mode... I struggle to fill brigades, and form units. Such shouldnt be as early or late in the war The Union had no trouble filling in the ranks of Brigades. The Union had always stronger numbers than the Confederates.

Dont get me wrong this is a great title. One of the best I have ever played. It has a great design and is very innovative. You can tell alot of development went into Forge of Freedom... I believe it is one of a very few titles that is worth the price. The great replayability and addictive gameplay will make this title ... A worthy addition to any collection.

_____________________________

Visit The Glorious Cause @ http://www.thegloriouscause.us

Camp Smith, US ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Proud NRA Member

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 13

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 9:58:00 AM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeanUSARMYGUARD

First I would like to thank you ... for taking the time and responding to my post.

The focus of my grievance is toward the extreme disadvantages to The Union. I have read and understand the strategies needed to win the war as The Union, however I feel they may be too much.

I have played 3 levels of difficulty - Normal, Easy, Very Easy and all provide a great deal of difficulty to The Union that limits the funfactor extremely.

Amoung the issues

1. Nearly every brigade in detailed combat... whether small or large army... misinterprets commands constantly... nearly to the point that makes devising strategies very difficult.

2. One ocassion I invaded Fredricksburg with 100,000 men against 30,000 Confederates. These men were nearly all armed with Springfield rifles ... had top leaders... and had great disposition. However all this wasnt enough. Numerous brigades broke and the battle was lost, even though I had circled the Confederate army, inflicted massive losses and had Confederate brigades routing.

3. Other occassions I charged Confederate brigades from behind... and lost over 100 men to 8 of the enemy

4. Even in Very Easy mode... I struggle to fill brigades, and form units. Such shouldnt be as early or late in the war The Union had no trouble filling in the ranks of Brigades. The Union had always stronger numbers than the Confederates.

Dont get me wrong this is a great title. One of the best I have ever played. It has a great design and is very innovative. You can tell alot of development went into Forge of Freedom... I believe it is one of a very few titles that is worth the price. The great replayability and addictive gameplay will make this title ... A worthy addition to any collection.

Taking a wild guess here;
1. Your containers are not very well trained (DIV/CORP/ARMY).
2. Sounds like your brigades had low morale
3. Well...charge...I avoid it, I've never figured it out tbh so cannot say anything about this.
4. How come you struggle to form units and fill brigades? Have you built camps? Are you having difficulty forming units due to no manpower? If so, do not build camps in the cities you want to produce your units (atleast on some settings).

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 14

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 3:24:38 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

While I have not had a number of the issues related by JeanUSARMYGUARD, I have too noted some things that might point to a distinct Confederate bias. Playing Advanced Rules, no advantages to either side and First Sgt difficulty, I have managed to win a majority of DC's so far but sometimes...

Early September 1862, yesterday the 122nd Confederate Bde marched in column into the guns of two well trained Union bde's, both with morale of better than 6 and 2500+ troops each. The Blanket Bde is armed with Springfield's and the 1 MD Volunteers (renamed) with muskets. First volley cost the Blanket Bde 33 casualties to nil, the second volley from the MD Volunteers (at 300%) inflicted 9 casualties at a cost of 19. My troops were entrenched on a hill and were not fatigued. I have found that this sort of thing happens a bit too often.

On the otherhand during the Confederate turn the AI charged my position uphill at a cost of 441 casualties to 6 for me, knocking the 122 Bde out of the battle for good.

The other thing is the infinite capacity of the Confederates for replacements. During the Late August turn I essentially wiped out the Confederate Irish Bde in battle but here it is back again in the Early September turn with a strength of over 3000. Being as how I'm currently over 100,000 men short despite camps producing 10,000+ men per turn, this is a bit hard to swallow.

This thread has twigged me to look for unusual behavior in DC and I've noted enough to think a pro-Confederate bias that might go beyond early war morale and leadership is at least possible.

I do love this game however, and am only just starting to appreciate the depth and subtleties of the FoF engine but find it frustrating when things like this happen. It would be nice to know what (if any) material advantages have been built into the AI for balance or whatever.

I have no issues with the command and control however, with 19th Century communications being what they were and all. Although the random walks of Bdes are sometimes a bit too random, the overall effect is valid (IMO) even if the actual mechanism is a bit ugly.

<Edit>
Agree that charging is almost always a bad idea, firepower is where it's at, lots of lovely firepower. This is legit IMO since most assaults degenerated into close-range firefights until somebody gave way. I think FoF reflects this pretty well overall.

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 7/25/2008 3:35:15 PM >

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 15

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 3:30:31 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

it is not a CSA bias, it is a AI bias

play as the CSA and you will see some of the same thing with the Union

the AI gets little perks

early in the War the side on the defence gets a major morale bump, in a few battles it is easy for the same defending forces to have battle morale in the 8's or higher

play and plan the game for the long haul, if you find some of my AARs with the Union, I had some pretty well trained troops marching around

_____________________________

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 16

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 3:56:28 PM

Joram

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

Exactly. In fact, I have won as the North using instant combat. There is no real southern bias.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 17

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 4:04:22 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

oh, yes, winning as the North can be easy, I have won two games as the North that other players said couldn't be done with the games they had running

also had a lot of fun with one of Gil's southern games (now he really put my back up against a wall !)

I think a lot of times, the Northern Player just tries to do too much too soon

just work with it, learn the tactics, learn the tactics that work for you ! and then use them

_____________________________

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 18

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 7:53:39 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

I think the point that is being ignored here is that there have been combat anomally's identified but not really explained. Instantly resurrected brigades and large amounts of ineffective firepower from competant units have been noted but no explanations are offered. If the ineffective fire is just a bad dice roll, fine. If the AI gets an undocumented replacement bonus for play balance so be it, but explaining that might help. If this is documented elsewhere in the Forum, I never found it despite looking before posting here.

Since this thread opened I have noted quite a number of incidents where the AI has gotten too good a call, perhaps because now I'm looking for them and using the attack reports screen and while I have no issues if it's just the luck of the draw, few of the comments above have addressed them. I will admit that I may be seeing something that isn't really there now that I've placed DC's under a microscope, as it were. Hard Sarge alludes to AI perks so some details might be nice.

I never wrote that I think there IS bias, only that I have noted evidence of what APPEARS to be Advantage; AI but concede that I have not yet played the South. To quote Lincoln, "One War at a time".

As for "attempting too much", hardly the case here. 13-months in have been too busy fending off multiple successive Confederate invasions using their seemingly limitless manpower pool. I am out killing the Rebels significantly but the South seems to be somehow winning a war of attrition. That is frustrating without understanding how that can happen, I would rather fight the programmed AI than the game system itself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly enjoying FoF, it's an excellent historical game and in DC I'm winning more often than losing but it doesn't seem to make any difference so far. Strategically, no significant issues noted but tactically I would rather know what, if any, unique benefits that the AI gets for whatever reasons.

New question though, will a Southern AI select Emancipation? If so, any intelligence as to what the triggers might be?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 19

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 8:57:32 PM

Joram

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

To be perfectly frank, I don't know if on normal level if the AI gets bonuses or not. I think they do, but not sure.

I have seen the southern AI pick emancipation but do not know the specific triggers involved.

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 20

RE: Realism - 7/25/2008 9:18:42 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

No real issues if it does, it would be nice to know one way or the other though.

Thx for the Emancipation info, I have a pretty good idea on what my triggers are going to be and hopefully can beat the AI to the punch. Things aren't going to well between the Union and Europe right now and France is sending 15 to 20+ guns plus a bunch of technology South every turn.

Still holding the line... Cheers.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 21

RE: Realism - 7/26/2008 1:01:25 AM

Ironclad

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

Sounds like you need to beef up the blockade and the diplomacy spend. I think AI bonuses kick in at 1st Sergeant level - that's certainly the case for resources.

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 22

RE: Realism - 7/27/2008 6:11:58 PM

ericbabe

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

JeanUSARMYGUARD,

Thank you for the kind words. We did an awful lot of testing to try to make sure that it would be very hard for the USA to win battles against the CSA in the early part of the war. One of our top priority design goals was to try to reproduce the pace of the war as best we could, and we felt that if a moderately experienced detailed combat player could go into Fredericksburg in the fall of '61, capture much of the CSA army, then march on to take Richmond, then in this case the game would not be very enjoyable to a majority of players. I realize that some of the factors -- such as the will-to-fight, the morale rules, the command and control rules, and the line of communication ("threat zone") rules -- do make the game frustrating for some players, especially newer players who are not used to all the details of the system. Players do like to have absolute control over their units, and the green units, who are admittedly hard to control, can be frustrating; still, there are ways to mitigate the "misinterpretation" of green units, such as by giving them orders to move to landmarks (terrain not adjacent to any similar type of terrain or to named terrain), or by giving them move orders with less than their full allotment of movement points, so that action left to adjust their position (even changing their facing can help immensely) if they misinterpret the original order. I sometimes worry that players will end up like Sherman after First Bull Run after players have their first experience commanding green units in battle.

The strategy for the USA player is, indeed, to work on increasing the quality of their units -- not just in terms of weapons, but also staff ratings, quality, general ratings, upgrades, brigade attributes, and so forth. It's also true that an important means by which the Union increases the quality of its troops -- especially its green troops -- is by fighting battles that it ends up losing.

Union commanders early in the war attempted many Napoleonic-style maneuvers: pincer attacks, turning and flanking maneuvers. They generally failed because the quality of the junior officers and divisional staffs wasn't sufficiently prodigious to allow these sorts of complicated maneuvers to be executed with proficiency. Units attempting to march on the flank often showed up piecemeal or in the wrong locations or at the wrong times. Our C&C rules attempt to simulate not only the early difficulty with which the Union had in coordinating even simple battlefield tactics, but they are also intended to model the improvement over time which the Union experienced that eventually allowed their commanders to execute these sorts of maneuvers with puissance.

I am surprised that you have difficulties creating and replacing brigades as the USA, however. There may be some important point of game mechanics you might be missing, as this is generally not a problem for the USA. Remember that brigades on the highest supply priority (and in rail supply) receive the most replacements. Foraging brigades, or brigades under amphibious supply, receive very few -- if any. Build lots of camps; don't be afraid to use muster and even conscription early in the war: those conscripts need time to get their quality built up.

_____________________________

(in reply to JeanUSARMYGUARD)

Post #: 23

RE: Realism - 7/27/2008 6:32:12 PM

ericbabe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
While I have not had a number of the issues related by JeanUSARMYGUARD, I have too noted some things that might point to a distinct Confederate bias. Playing Advanced Rules, no advantages to either side and First Sgt difficulty, I have managed to win a majority of DC's so far but sometimes...

It's only a bias in the sense that we really wanted to preserve the historical pace of the Civil War for most players, and so we worked very hard during testing to adjust many parameters (in particular the defensive morale and will-to-fight bonuses, general and staff rating bonuses) to cause a majority of our testers to lose to the CSA as the Union in the Virginia theater in the opening year or two of the war.

I can't stress too much how worried I was about having a Union that was able to just march on Richmond on the opening three turns of the game and effectively winning the game in March of '62. If players who are new to the system could do this, just think what veteran players would be able to do! I think overall this would make for a less enjoyable game, even if the C&C rules of the system are frustratingly limiting in the early years (especially for new players).

Another important design goal for us was to reward players who take the effort to learn all of the nuances of the system and who make use of the brigade attributes, know the limitations of the staff ratings, pair up general special ability training with units equipped to make the best use of these things, etc. We didn't want to make these things just "window dressing", but we wanted to make players have to give serious thought about how best to organize, equip, and train their armies. Buying good guns and attempting to overwhelm the CSA with sheer numbers generally doesn't work because of the morale and C&C rules -- but it is a good way to get rid of the green status of a lot of your units!

Historically speaking, in the opening years of the war the defenders won an overwhelming percentage of battles -- something like 85% -- regardless of often numerical and firearm advantages possessed by the attackers. From what I've read, an important factor in this was the low quality of the junior officers in the units (in the Union, but also for the Confederacy as well); attacking places greater demands on an army's C&C, and so early in the war attackers had a much harder time of things than defenders. So I would say that a lot of bias people perceive toward the CSA in the game is really a "defender bias": to wit, if the CSA tries to duplicate Antietam early in the war, the USA can generally drive them out of Maryland without too much problem.

_____________________________

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 24

RE: Realism - 7/27/2008 6:50:18 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

If you want AI biased play at full general... Those morale loss reductions at that level... Hehe at lower difficulties I would capture alot of union brigades, now they all play Leonidas and his 300

But I love it! It forces me to fight hard in every battle. Well done guys!

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 25

RE: Realism - 7/27/2008 8:21:30 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Ericbabe, thanks for the reply, I had drafted a followup (below) that I will submit unedited.

After six complete DC battles using the combat window throughout, I have concluded that what I had been seeing is poor 'rolls' and just plain bad luck that does not appear to be outside of reasonable probabilities. At the First Sgt difficulty level there is a penalty listed but it's minor and so no issue from my end. I am satisfied that there is no discernable bias in the detailed combat routines. Now I can close the combat window since using it ruins the flow of the tactical battles for me. I will however, use it sparingly as a tool to see how newly introduced weapons and attributes behave under fire.

Also, kudos to Terje439 and Mad Russian for their threads in the AAR Forum. Both are articulate and well worth reading.

One thing that I have not seen here is hints on specific organizations within a container unit, specifically Corps and Armies. I have implemented the following and it seems to be working so far. Disregard if this is covered elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprized but could not find it.

Attaching cavalry and artillery bdes directly to the Corps and Army commanders has a number of advantages in DC. For example:

Army container
Meade (***)
Hunt (*)
Army Cavalry Bde (insert name here)
Army Artillery Bde (insert name here)

I Corps (subordinate container)
Reynolds (***)
I Corps Artillery Bde
1 Div (subordinate container)
2 Div
3 Div... and so on.

A screenshot would be better but don't know how to take one in FoF.

This brings a couple of things to the table:
1. It's historical, higher formations generally had cavalry and or artillery attached directly to their headquarters.
2. It ensures that these high value units will always have a general with all of the advantages that accrue from that.
3. For those who like to impose divisional integrety into DC, it allows that combat support units to operate wherever required within the area of responsibility of the higher formation.

On another note I have read around here a number of posters lamenting the lack of actual battlefield maps for DC but in my opinion the FoF team got it right as is. Historical battles happened exactly where they did for reasons that were specific to the situation at the time. The scale of FoF precludes taking specific roads on a particular date so not being able to exactly re-fight Gettysburg during the Early July '63 turn is entirely reasonable IMO. There are non-FoF options out there for those who wish to re-fight a specific battle. What the representitive maps do is force the player to actually do an appreciation of the terrain, time and space. This imposes all sorts of real-life type problems since the sides usually start out of contact. Cavalry and scouting becomes essential and the bad guys showing up off the anticipated axis can be disasterous. I'm finding DC totally absorbing, it reminds me of the old 'Beer and Pretzel' Blue and Gray board wargames from the 1970's in scale but not in execution.

Sorry for rambling on, while this is the 'Realism' thread, I hope I have not hijacked it from JeanUSARMYGUARD.

Keeping my fire steady and effective... Cheers

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 7/27/2008 8:23:50 PM >

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 26

RE: Realism - 7/27/2008 8:43:36 PM

Joram

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

Just a quick screenshot tip. I open Paint before I start the game. In game I simply use the Print Screen (or alt or ctrl print screen depending on circumstance) and the alt-tab back to Paint and paste it in. This works well for me but I've definitely heard mileage varies.

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 27

RE: Realism - 7/28/2008 8:42:52 AM

moose1999

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

One general comment on the detailed battles:

It seems the designers are well aware that the detailed combat can be overwhelming for green players.
I would like to stress, that I would much rather have overwhelming gameplay, that underwhelming.
Make the rules adjustable so inexperienced players can have an easier time - but please don't ever consider scaling down the mechanics of the detailed combat.
It's the wonderful level of detail everywhere in this game that keeps us coming back for more - and makes mastering the game (or trying to, at least) such a satisfying experience.
If the detailed combat was any less detailed than it is (streamlined, as it is called it today), FOF would be a worse game for it.

I know nobody talked about dumbing down the detailed combat and I'm sure the designers have no plans in that direction.
But I just wanted to underline, that the detailed detailed combat is one of FOF's biggest strengths - and that it is one of the most rewarding things to tackle - and eventually understand and master - something very complicated. Which is one of the big selling points of FOF for me and the reason I keep coming back to it - and the reason I will buy every other title or expansion WCS ever releases.

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 28

RE: Realism - 7/29/2008 2:55:01 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

But I just wanted to underline, that the detailed detailed combat is one of FOF's biggest strengths -

Well, that may be so in your opinion. In my opinion it's the biggest weakness of the game.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to moose1999)

Post #: 29

RE: Realism - 7/29/2008 12:35:02 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

But I just wanted to underline, that the detailed detailed combat is one of FOF's biggest strengths -

Well, that may be so in your opinion. In my opinion it's the biggest weakness of the game.

Good Hunting.

MR

Hehe it is both

- too easy on low levels to capture the enemy
+ it becomes a challenge on the higher levels.

The more I play this game, the more I love it. So well done guys!

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 30