Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Hi everyone,
I hate to make any statement given such a heated debate already.  jsc991 seems to be expecting what I did when I bought the game -- a simulation.  I was hoping for something that would be quite detailed, sort of like WITP (War in the Pacific, or even WITP-AE) is to older (or this other hex-based) Pacific strategy games.  But I learned that FOF is more a game, intended to be enjoyed.  There is not much micromanaging (like assigning Brigade leader, which would have been cool to get more of a personal relationship to the armies you build up and lead into the fight), which means you can play it pretty easily and a game is quite fast. 

However, some things I liked a lot, like the economy part or the maps are very nice (I played the last patch before the April one, FYI).  Other things I missed: BG leader assignments, smaller provinces (counties!) on the strategic map so you and move your army in different columns to your target (like shenandoah east and west forks routes, for instance).  Or have smaller provinces in general (Fredericksburg split in FB, Wilderness, Gordonsville, Centreville etc).  Also the detailed battle maps could be nicer, have a more realistic road pattern and other strategic features that AI would consider more in forming its lines; or some historic maps for certain provinces. 

Being able to assign brigade commanders permanently is at the top of our list of things we would like to do if there's a FOF expansion. Not an easy change to code, which is why we haven't done it for a patch, but we do think it would be a great addition.

I also agree that, ideally, we would redo the map at some points if we were to come out with a new and improved FOF. And if we did that, reworking some of the Virginia provinces would be number one on the list. Having smaller provinces overall, though, would not be something we'd want to do, since that would completely change the game and require massive amount of new programming and testing.

Historic maps for provinces is something suggested before. It would certainly be a great addition, though not an easy one. We're keeping the idea in mind, though.

Also I found that AI in detailed battle didn't seem to keep units of division somehow formed, but mixed brigades of different formations (sure historically that happened too, but in most cases brigades of a division stayed at least somewhat together).  One thing that annoyed me a bit about detailed combat was the minimum unit size, below which they rout.  Many BG's historically were small in battles, like 500-800 men units seens for instance for Lees tired army at Antietam. 

Possibly things we'll change at some point. Personally, I'd rather see the routing occur when a percentage of men are lost rather than a fixed minimum being reached. Unfortunately, I only reached this opinion long after the game had been released!

Also, artillery but in a few cases historically was concentrated into formations of 3000 men (see Alexander at GB). Initially most artillery was brigade artillery, but the Confed (initially Lee) reorganized it in 1862 into battalions of ca 300 men and 20-30 guns, which then were employed battery wise. The Union later did the same, and BG artillery was not so common afterwards anymore.  These heavy 3000 men artillery BGs did way to much effect in concentration of fire and damage than in history I felt (quite a few battle against a nurmerically far superior AI I won by having concentrated all my economy on building ART and getting the indirect fire attribute -- I kept shifting those 10-15 parrott and 24p howitzer BGs by train forth and back east and west; if you look at historical sources, artillery unless using canister at close range, created more noise than casualties, contrary to what many people want to believe. Just read up, Official Records of the War of Rebellion is a really good source and available at the Library of Congress)!

Since the game is at the brigade-level we decided to go with artillery brigades, even though that's not how things were done, especially at the beginning of the war. In retrospect, it would have been better to limit all artillery units and require an "Artillery Brigade" upgrade that would enable them to grow in size and firepower. But this is an idea we had long after release.

As for ranges, you're right that less damage was done, but guns firing at a distance could still have a major effect on the battle. Or just the fear of them could, since for example Little Round Top's value was largely its usefulness for placing artillery where it could bombard troops as far as a mile away.

However, I fixed both the BG issues with a Hex editor, and found the 3 or 4 places that I needed to lower the thresholds.  That worked will with detailed combat, and I could have a reasonable artillery battalion for each div and one for corps reserve.  However, AI never managed to organize so many arty units and organize the containers properly -- was probably just not designed to do this.  Would be nice if that could be added as an option in the next patch.

I'm not sure just what you're asking for.

The strategic AI of the game seemed to be quite sound to me, but surely not capable of defeating a human without bonuses.   Well, that is the sad story for most games though -- guess AI is the thing potential customers least see -- fancy graphics, maps, millions of weapons and stuff seem to sell these days.   Though I like Take Command 2 Manassas a lot with its detail, historic realism and reasonably good AI, it seems also the next part, Gettysburg will be "just another map" (sorry for the sidetrack) -- like Arma and Arma 2 will be for me to Operation Flashpoint.  Maybe one day I will buy another game of these series -- maybe Arma 13 and TC12.

Anyway, before I made my small hex mods, I usually played CSA and the Union AI would give me some good times.  I didn't like to give it unrealistic advantages in the detailed combat, but economic bonuses were ok for me - after all, I wanted to have some realism left.   One thing that annoyed me was that I tried to style my ANV along the lines of the historic OOBs, and that meant something like 50+ BGs in 10 divisions or so (yeah, I did change the max limits for the containers).  Yeah, huge, but I didn't replenish many BGs so altogther it were usually some 7-80000 men.  I kept them split up, protecting WV, Shenandoah, Fredericksburg, the Peninsula and Norfolk, typically.  Only in case of imminent battle or offensive I concentrated.  
Although I did something similar in the West, having also there historic troop strengths (~100.000 men across from far West, Tennessee, and the South), by mid/end 1862 AI tended to send its large formations to the East, accumulating often more than 300.000 men in W. DC. and PA.  I tuned around the parameters that can be modded (there must be a thread somewhere that MM guys gave me a hint on how AI computes its behavior), but it didn't help too much. 
Maybe AI was confused by my many, though small BGs in Virgina area. That that got worse after modding the BG limits, and tuning down the camp production rate, is probably not surprising and surely my issue.  Well, anyway, I not always saw this.

Sometimes AI did pretty well in the West, particulary if its armies in the east stayed idle and didn't loose too many times against me.  AI seemed to concentrate in the east if he lost several major battles there, or if he bled down his forces in the West.   I guess Strategic AI could be tuned down a little more to be less agressive and focus a bit more on defending its own cities, which I felt it wasn't paying too much attention to in the West.   Maybe that would help.

Now don't get the impression that I didn't like this game: I got many fun hours out of this game, and can say it is pretty nice.  I still play it once in a while, and would suggest everyone who doesn't absolute require the historical realism and detail of a WITP-AE or TC2M to buy it.   But hope for a FOF2 that will adress some things I would hope for and turn this game more into a historic simulation.  Maybe, maybe not.
Best regards,
Jan

Thanks for all your feedback. We definitely would like to do a FOF expansion, though I don't see starting work on it in the coming months. (We have multiple still-secret projects that are top priorities at the moment.) But if we do one, at least some of the changes you'd like to see should be in there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

Like an old soldier, "concern" over this issue has just faded away.

If it weren't for the terrible looking maps and graphics, I'd try another Civil War game I think. Sadly this game has me hooked a bit, despite the fact that its about as much of a Civil War game as Chess is a simulation of medieval combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Yuck

I hear that the AI in chess might be up to snuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: steel god

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but I would suggest that the one setting you need to adjust is the one where you select a local game over a PBEM game.  As a veteran war gamer with 30+ years playing, and numerous credited play tests under my belt I can say with confidence that no AI developed for any war game will ever be even half as good as a human opponent.  Find a living breathing opponent and put that AI play behind you and you'll never worry about such things again.

Respectfully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
Dumb question perhaps but here goes...
In the Data folder there are a couple of files of interest.

The ACWProvinces file Column K (in M$ Excel) is headed "Theater" and the following provinces are assigned a value of 5 out of a range of 0 to 5:

Shenandoah
Fredericksburg
Rappahanock
Petersburg
Norfolk
Cumberland
Annapolis
Potomac_River
James_River

Meanwhile the ACWConstants file has an entry (row 100 in M$ EXcel) reading as follows:
AI_OutOfTheaterMultiplierOnValuex100 15

Now is it merely a coincidence that the AI seems to gather in the provinces with highest "Theater" value?

Will admit to not having conducted any experiments editing either the "Theater" value or the "Out of Theater Multiplier on Value" since I tend to keep my Eastern Union armies fairly small and generally see continued Confederate AI presence in the West. Since I could find no text or information detailing what these values actually do, I figure that changing either or both of the above would likely have major unintended consequences.

Still I wonder if what jscott991 is seeing is in the Confederate AI is related to either or both of these values and so perhaps this AI behavior might be configurable by the player.

Perhaps one of the designers can enlighten us. Thanks in advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Why do people always say "play pbem" as an excuse for bad AIs'? When I got time to play,I do not have time to set up a pbem,and I don't want to play at the convenience of another person.What happens when the other player isn't around?I want to get more than one turn in.It is not possible to have another person at the ready any time I want to play.
These games need a decent AI. The fact is,the majority of players play against the AI. So like it or not, The AI is THE single most important issue in a wargame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hgilmer3
It does seem of note that I read a brief on the Battle of Gettysburg and it didn't seem like they had very big armies.  Total casualties ended up being like 23K for Union and 25K for CSA and the total forces were something along the lines of 160K total troops both sides put together?

The AI does not handle the west well, though, especially once you build up enough troops.  I have only beaten the game on DC/QC up to 2nd lieutenant so I'm not sure how good I am as a reference.