Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Strategy for a new player

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Strategy for a new player Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Strategy for a new player - 6/24/2004 2:34:26 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
As the program doesn't play well, correct strategy against the program may be somewhat different from correct strategy against a competent human player.

Playing against a human, the game is basically one in which the Union player tries to batter his way into a series of almost-invulnerable fortified cities.

The Union player needs to build a lot of ocean and river ships to destroy city fortifications wherever they can be reached by water. He will lose a lot of ships doing this and needs to be able to replace them quickly. But as a first priority, he must blockade the South by patrolling every Confederate port with at least six ships each. This cuts Confederate supplies dramatically and is the easiest and most effective way to hurt the Confederacy. It's probably best not to lose ships attacking forts until you have the blockade in place. Increase your shipbuilding capacity; this is expensive, but needs to be done: even the Union has nothing like enough capacity at the start of the game.

Compared with the Union, the Confederacy is short of men and supplies -- especially after the blockade is in place. I know it's boring, but the Confederacy should try to fight almost every battle as the defender. There are occasional opportunities to benefit from attacking, but be very careful, because an attack can easily go wrong and lose men you can't afford to lose. Sit in fortified cities and let the Union player attack you. There's nothing else he can do.

If you lose a battle or your forts are destroyed, don't panic and order a retreat. Build more forts and sit tight. Units in a fortified city never seem to retreat unless they're ordered to do so.

I really don't know whether it's worth building a Confederate navy or not. It can certainly worry the Union player if you do, but if your ships just get sunk, as they probably will, they might end up looking like a waste of men and supplies. In a game I played, I found that a Confederate navy came in useful after European intervention, to join forces with the French/British navies, but if you never get European intervention this doesn't apply.

Ship as much cotton as you can before the Union blockade becomes effective. Try not to spend all the supplies you get that way: you'll have more need of them later.

At the start of the game, defend Beaufort and Norfolk (with divisions, not just garrisons) and preferably New Bern and Plymouth too. The other ports are a lower priority because a bug in the game may prevent the Union player from reaching them by sea (don't rely on this, though). Remember that you can lose the whole of Texas by leaving Sabine undefended; but it takes a while for Union ships to get to Sabine, even if they manage to bypass Beaufort on the way.

The Union player should invade Norfolk, Plymouth, New Bern, or Beaufort if his patrolling fleets find that they're undefended. Garrisons are invisible, but garrisons are very vulnerable as long as the invaders have some artillery with them. Unfortunately artillery is heavy and requires more ships to carry it; but you have some understrength artillery brigades at the start of the game that can be used. Trying to invade the more southern Confederate ports is risky because your fleet may decide of its own accord to land at Norfolk or Beaufort instead.

The Union player should take and hold Missouri and Kentucky early in the game, and defend each city in those states with a permanent division (use low-rated leaders for this duty). A garrison is not enough, for two reasons: garrisons sometimes vanish (a bug in the game), and garrisons are sometimes defeated by civilian revolts (a feature of the game). But a division, even of only one brigade, seems to be safe against both problems.

(in reply to madflava13)
Post #: 31
RE: Strategy for a new player - 6/24/2004 2:54:57 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Nice summary Jonathan!

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________


(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 32
RE: Strategy for a new player - 6/28/2004 4:18:36 PM   
SittingDuck

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline
Anyone up for email games?

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 33
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 6/28/2004 4:59:06 PM   
MisterX

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
hey could you send me the game here is my email :nickrburg@msn.com

(in reply to SittingDuck)
Post #: 34
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 6/28/2004 6:26:49 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
I bought the original game . . . the publisher rushed it out way too soon -- unplayably buggy -- but I was delighted with Frank's efforts to support it.

When I finally found a PBEM partner we discovered the "Black Hole of Fredericksburg" -- when the combined size of the two Eastern Armies passed a certain size, they were drawn into battle every turn, regardless of maorale, fatigue or orders. Was this problem patched?

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to MisterX)
Post #: 35
RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur - 6/28/2004 8:53:58 PM   
MisterX

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
hey sittingduck could you please send me the game you already know my email.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 36
RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur - 6/28/2004 11:20:56 PM   
SittingDuck

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline
Sent and enjoy.

Never knew about the Fredericksburg blackhole, but I do notice that either side keeps hacking away at Fredericksburg.

Anyone want to share their ideas on some houserules that could make games more balanced? I don't know all of the weaknesses yet so I can't offer much.

I am surprised that Frank has not chimed in with a comment or two yet.

(in reply to MisterX)
Post #: 37
RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur - 6/29/2004 4:00:28 AM   
Capt. Queeg

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 8/12/2002
Status: offline
Anyone have any suggestions on how to get the game since Frank's site is down? Thanks.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 38
RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur - 6/29/2004 4:07:16 AM   
GameTester


Posts: 156
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
Tried this game out but just don't like it. Maybe someone could make a new one, it can't be that hard.

< Message edited by GameTester -- 6/28/2004 9:06:41 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Queeg)
Post #: 39
RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur - 6/29/2004 4:16:52 AM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Queeg

Anyone have any suggestions on how to get the game since Frank's site is down? Thanks.


Underdogs has it IIRC.

(in reply to Capt. Queeg)
Post #: 40
RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur - 6/29/2004 1:21:17 PM   
MisterX

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

Sent and enjoy.

Never knew about the Fredericksburg blackhole, but I do notice that either side keeps hacking away at Fredericksburg.

Anyone want to share their ideas on some houserules that could make games more balanced? I don't know all of the weaknesses yet so I can't offer much.

I am surprised that Frank has not chimed in with a comment or two yet.
Thats strange when i looked in my email inbox i dint saw your email ? Could you give me your email adres and then you could send me the game then ?

(in reply to SittingDuck)
Post #: 41
RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur - 6/29/2004 1:59:59 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GameTester
Tried this game out but just don't like it. Maybe someone could make a new one, it can't be that hard.


Was there anything specific you didn't like?

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to GameTester)
Post #: 42
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 6/29/2004 2:34:29 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
I bought the game in 1996, I've been playing it on and off since then, recently completed an e-mail game and I'm halfway through another one. I've never encountered this "Black Hole of Fredericksburg" problem -- perhaps because the right circumstances haven't occurred in my games? So I don't know whether any patch has addressed it or not.

The latest version is 2.66, dated 30 September 2003.

Frank is planning to rewrite the game completely and use a bigger map next time.

(However, Frank seems to have disappeared in recent weeks. Gone on holiday, perhaps?)

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 43
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 6/29/2004 6:55:42 PM   
SittingDuck

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline
whoof - I'll say one thing - there needs to be a MUCH greater challenging AI in any new version. This one is just not getting it done at all. And I know most AI's are weak challenges, but this one is not good.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 44
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 6/29/2004 7:14:13 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

whoof - I'll say one thing - there needs to be a MUCH greater challenging AI in any new version. This one is just not getting it done at all. And I know most AI's are weak challenges, but this one is not good.


Make sure you give the computer full advantage. There is a setting on the set-up menu for that. Also, if you are playing the rebs, make intervention "no chance." Putting random leaders also tends to make things more difficult.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________


(in reply to SittingDuck)
Post #: 45
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 6/29/2004 9:42:37 PM   
SittingDuck

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline
Good point on the random leader thing. I am intrigued by the slightly 'off' leader ratings option and will try that. As well as hidden.

One thing I certainly don't like about the AI-handicapping (and this is almost all games) is that it's simply mathematical handicapping. IOW, making them *not* subject to the same rules/restrictions/etc that a human player does. One of these days someone needs to actually make an AI that has *levels* of strategy and not this poor handicapping stuff. Because those AI advantages don't make the AI any more interesting. It just makes you have to use twice the amount of force to accomplish something, skewing already games that often have their numbers off.

< Message edited by SittingDuck -- 6/29/2004 2:44:24 PM >

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 46
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 6/30/2004 3:39:48 AM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
@SittingDuck

Are you playing the rebs? That could explain a lot, the AI in the east simply throws itself at you trying to wear you down. If your able to entrench yourself in Fredericksburg and hold out, there is little the AI can do to unseat you (they same holds for PBEM btw).

A tougher match is playing the Union. Some suggest giving the rebs Missouri to balance things out, but leave Kentucky neutral. I always played with leadership qualities hidden with a slight variation, and most PBEM gamers do the same. Give the rebs a good chance of intervention and I think you will find it more interesting.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________


(in reply to SittingDuck)
Post #: 47
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/4/2004 11:07:43 PM   
sabre100

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 5/23/2004
Status: offline
hey sittingduck could you please send me the game as Frank's website is still down so I can not download. my email is sabre@renderfx.com regards

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 48
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/6/2004 2:09:07 AM   
MisterX

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
Still dint recieve an email sitting duck my email is :nickrburg@msn.com

(in reply to SittingDuck)
Post #: 49
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/6/2004 11:50:19 PM   
SittingDuck

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline
Nick, I sent the game to you as requested on 6/28. I am resending it to you and also Sabre.

Nick - it bombed again. You'll have to get it from one of these guys. Suggest you try Yahoo mail or something. I am not sure of Hotmail's inbox capacity, but again it would not accept it.

< Message edited by SittingDuck -- 7/6/2004 5:04:04 PM >

(in reply to MisterX)
Post #: 50
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/15/2004 6:45:08 PM   
MisterX

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
I got my Yahoo Mail adres here it is :nroozenburg@yahoo.co.uk

Could you already show me some pics ?

(in reply to SittingDuck)
Post #: 51
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/17/2004 12:00:39 AM   
MisterX

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
Sittingduck are you gonna send the game to my Yahoo Mail ?

(in reply to SittingDuck)
Post #: 52
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/24/2004 3:56:47 AM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
I love the premise of this game but have a few small problems.

This are really just nitpicks.

One is the armies. I understand that you have an army commander over their subordinate corps and that the corps commanders carry out orders according to their abilities.

My complaint stems from "Basing" the armies and their objectives.

For example I made Lee Commander of the Army of N Virginia with j Johnson and Beauregard as subordinate Corps commanders on day one.

The PROBLEM is that I made Richmond the Armys home base and the objective as Washington DC (later I changed this to defending Richmond)

Johnson proceeded to link up with Beauregard HOWEVER Beauregard proceeded to march on Washington without him !!!

The army got divided up and chopped up.

Just dont like that you can stage an army in open terran rather than in cities. Like to see Lee MOVE with his subordinates.

The other nitpick was starting command levels for officers.

didnt like that DH Hill, J Magruder, B Huger, ect ect.. start out as CORPS commanders rather than divisional. This is strange considering the lack of troops early on. Had to create 8 or 9 Confederate Corps rather than divisons.

Really should be a way to edit starting command levels. As well as changing Cavalry commanders into Infantry and vice versa.

(in reply to MisterX)
Post #: 53
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/24/2004 5:27:14 AM   
ShermanM4


Posts: 298
Joined: 7/14/2003
Status: offline
quote:

I love the premise of this game but have a few small problems.

This are really just nitpicks.

One is the armies. I understand that you have an army commander over their subordinate corps and that the corps commanders carry out orders according to their abilities.

My complaint stems from "Basing" the armies and their objectives.

For example I made Lee Commander of the Army of N Virginia with j Johnson and Beauregard as subordinate Corps commanders on day one.

The PROBLEM is that I made Richmond the Armys home base and the objective as Washington DC (later I changed this to defending Richmond)

Johnson proceeded to link up with Beauregard HOWEVER Beauregard proceeded to march on Washington without him !!!

The army got divided up and chopped up.

Just dont like that you can stage an army in open terran rather than in cities. Like to see Lee MOVE with his subordinates.

The other nitpick was starting command levels for officers.

didnt like that DH Hill, J Magruder, B Huger, ect ect.. start out as CORPS commanders rather than divisional. This is strange considering the lack of troops early on. Had to create 8 or 9 Confederate Corps rather than divisons.

Really should be a way to edit starting command levels. As well as changing Cavalry commanders into Infantry and vice versa.


Heya,
first they do that for several reasons. Make sure you check initiative and things like that. That is also just part of their profiles to do that. Thats why I always play with the commanders stats at random. Second, you do realize this game is eight years old don't you? In December, we should receieve our next installment of ACW, or if I recall correctly that is what Franks site read the last time I saw it. Hopefully things like this will be fixed.

_____________________________


"Perserverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."

~General George Washington


(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 54
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/24/2004 6:37:14 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
Did any of you guys try "No Greater Glory" by SSI? An old operational Civil War Strategy game back in the late 80's. I was a beta tester, I know it's good! LOL It has a lot of politics in it, or at least as I recall. Wasn't too bad of a game for an Amiga 500.

(in reply to ShermanM4)
Post #: 55
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/24/2004 6:58:15 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
You can assign a cavalry commander to an infantry division; but you can't assign an infantry commander to a cavalry division.

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 56
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/24/2004 3:51:59 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Army Basing..

Your army should always be based as close to its area of operations as possible. I believe an army has a supply zone of 5 hexes. So in your case, if you want to attack Washington, you should base your army in Fredericksville.

As for moving armies... ahh, this is an art. If you give an army an "advance" order, they will. The closer the objective, the more likely they will all go there. Also, it depends on the type of march you chose. If you REALLY want the boys to attack fast, select "forced," but the down side is they arrive for battle fairly fatigued, and that could lose you the contest.

Also remember, that leaders with high initiative ratings will sometimes act independently. Although you may want to disregard the yank division a couple hexes west of your objective, Jackson for example, won't... and he will attack. Others, especially corps leaders, with poor ratings, will hang back and may not take part in the upcoming battle. One work around here, is to use divisions. Divisional leaders will almost always follow your orders to the letter.

Another interesting way of moving armies is by using the "defend" and "withdraw" orders. With these two orders you can actually advance on an objective but keep much tighter control on your forces. Use the unit movement system (click on unit) and then with your mouse give it a path. By this technique, you can advance your army say 2 hexes (where they will be less fatiqued). Once your army has moved closer to its objective (say within 2 hexes), a normal advance will get them to launch the final assault. Note, although army elements need army orders, there is nothing to stop you from giving each element its own movement path. I always do this to reinforce the army orders and it seems to help quite a lot in maitaining control.

Also, be aware of the weather. Any movement will be hampered by poor weather. So if you ask an Army to march 6 hexes in the winter and they only move 2, don't be surprised.

Hope that helps some..

Ray (alias Lava)

< Message edited by Lava -- 7/24/2004 1:56:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 57
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/24/2004 11:44:34 PM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

Heya,
first they do that for several reasons. Make sure you check initiative and things like that. That is also just part of their profiles to do that. Thats why I always play with the commanders stats at random. Second, you do realize this game is eight years old don't you? In December, we should receieve our next installment of ACW, or if I recall correctly that is what Franks site read the last time I saw it. Hopefully things like this will be fixed.


Well the whole premise of my comments was aimed at seeing corrections in the NEXT game rather than trashing the current one.

Why I said nitpicks rather than complaints.

I understand about how armies and inititive works. My thoughts were maybe a more cohesive way for armys to act might be usefull.

Also wanted to address the "Basing" of armies in cities. Felt that was too limiting.

I think one thing that would GREATLY improve this game is an increase in game map. You create a stack limit and increase game map size and MANUEVERS will take place in a game.

For example lets look at gettysburgh battle.

if this battle was to be fought over several hexes we might see Sickles corps fighting Andersons division below little round top. Another part of the army would fight on Cemetary hill. Still another part might see Pickets charge.

yes I know would be impractical to increase map to size that would reflect down on to individual battles. But I was thinking in terms of armies having "right wing, Center , Left wing , Reserves..." instead of moving in just one big peice.

just a thought.

< Message edited by William Amos -- 7/24/2004 9:47:05 PM >

(in reply to ShermanM4)
Post #: 58
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/25/2004 6:11:18 AM   
ShermanM4


Posts: 298
Joined: 7/14/2003
Status: offline
quote:

Well the whole premise of my comments was aimed at seeing corrections in the NEXT game rather than trashing the current one.

Why I said nitpicks rather than complaints.

I understand about how armies and inititive works. My thoughts were maybe a more cohesive way for armys to act might be usefull.

Also wanted to address the "Basing" of armies in cities. Felt that was too limiting.

I think one thing that would GREATLY improve this game is an increase in game map. You create a stack limit and increase game map size and MANUEVERS will take place in a game.

For example lets look at gettysburgh battle.

if this battle was to be fought over several hexes we might see Sickles corps fighting Andersons division below little round top. Another part of the army would fight on Cemetary hill. Still another part might see Pickets charge.

yes I know would be impractical to increase map to size that would reflect down on to individual battles. But I was thinking in terms of armies having "right wing, Center , Left wing , Reserves..." instead of moving in just one big peice.

just a thought.


Agreed

_____________________________


"Perserverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."

~General George Washington


(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 59
RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumt... - 7/25/2004 12:13:16 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
Some people seem to feel the urge to get some representation of tactics into a strategical game. Not me.

Frank's existing old ACW game is a strategical game with no tactics, but it already takes a very long time to play. Adding any tactical element would just make it unplayable, at least for me.

Furthermore, one turn represents ten days. Ten days is not a battle, it's a campaign including a whole series of battles. I don't think it makes sense to split armies into left and right wings on this scale; and still less sense to talk about representing Pickett's Charge, which took about half an hour if I remember rightly.

Fortunately for my point of view, I doubt that Frank could face the programming complications and further debugging problems of adding tactical elements into a strategical game. (If we can assume that Frank is still alive out there somewhere...)

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Strategy for a new player Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.641