RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> After Action Reports



Message

jchastain -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 5:23:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: miller41

Is the Game AI any good? I am sure I will play PBEM but would sure be glad if the computer can fight a decent fight?



There was quite a bit of discussion on this earlier. The AI is decent, but it can't beat an experienced human player on an even playing field. The game has incremental difficulty levels that slowly stack the deck against you (through scaling with progressively worse multipliers rather than outright cheating) so that the upper levels become quite nasty.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:07:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Is that Jeb Stuart way up there in Canada? Lee is gonna be pissed if it is. [:)]


Actually, that is the canadian army. Since they have the potential to join the CSA (through British diplomacy) they are shown in red even prior to being active.


Okay, so that's what I vaguely remembered.



nmleague -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:15:58 AM)

Quick question for anyone.  Are generals for each side available in the game, when they were historically available?  From reading the PBEM AARs it seems that some arent in the game at a period that they were in really life, example, US Grant lead the forces that captured Fort Donelson in February 1862, but he is not yet in the PBEM game by September 1862.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:18:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nmleague

Quick question for anyone. Are generals for each side available in the game, when they were historically available? From reading the PBEM AARs it seems that some arent in the game at a period that they were in really life, example, US Grant lead the forces that captured Fort Donelson in February 1862, but he is not yet in the PBEM game by September 1862.



They do appear roughly at the time they first became generals, but in a database of 1000 generals I'd say it's a lock that there are a few mistakes. Once the game comes out we'll have a thread for reporting changes that need to be made to the generals' file, and will fix them by patch. (Plus, we'll tell people how to modify that file themselves in advance of the patch.)



nmleague -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:37:03 AM)

Should have mentioned that Grant was a Brigadier General at that time.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:45:34 AM)

I figured.

It occurs to me that Grant is a big enough deal that we should make sure this is right before the game is released. I'm on the case...



chris0827 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:50:47 AM)

There was only one rank higher than brigadier general in the union army at that time. Grant was in command of a corps size unit at Forts Henry and Donelson and soon after in command of an army.



nmleague -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:51:48 AM)

Here is a site on the web that has the information on Fort Donelson   http://www.nps.gov/fodo

When I was looking for information on forts Henry and Donelson I found this site that lists links to all civil war battlefields by state http://www.nps.gov/fodo



elmo3 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 6:12:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird


...

Thanks elmo, I know that disease was a factor I just do not remember to many instanced where an army was smoked for 20,000 men in a 2 week period. not to mention 2 seperate armies in a 4 week period.


That may be true but I think it is necessary to look at the bigger picture. If the numbers come out about right for a year, or for the whole war then any two week period or even a month on the high side is acceptable, to me anyway. Also I would speculate the designers might be using the disease mechanic as one way to discourage massing unhistorically large armies. It does make sense that the more troops you have in one container, the greater will be the deaths from disease if it hits that container. Those levels of single turn losses could be there as an incentive for you to build hospitals which become one more thing competing for scarce resources, thus forcing you to make tough choices. If losses from disease were more uniform each turn then that incentive could be lessened. Again, just speculation on my part.



regularbird -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 9:30:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird


...

Thanks elmo, I know that disease was a factor I just do not remember to many instanced where an army was smoked for 20,000 men in a 2 week period. not to mention 2 seperate armies in a 4 week period.


That may be true but I think it is necessary to look at the bigger picture. If the numbers come out about right for a year, or for the whole war then any two week period or even a month on the high side is acceptable, to me anyway. Also I would speculate the designers might be using the disease mechanic as one way to discourage massing unhistorically large armies. It does make sense that the more troops you have in one container, the greater will be the deaths from disease if it hits that container. Those levels of single turn losses could be there as an incentive for you to build hospitals which become one more thing competing for scarce resources, thus forcing you to make tough choices. If losses from disease were more uniform each turn then that incentive could be lessened. Again, just speculation on my part.


OK, I can buy that one.



Ironclad -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/22/2006 4:51:56 PM)

Thanks Gil and JC for a great AAR - a really enjoyable and enlightening game to follow. Previously I had dismissed PBEM because of the lack of a tactical dimension but this has changed my mind. No matter how improved the AI there is no substitute, I suppose, for the imagination and cunning of a human opponent! I like COG but am really looking forward to playing FOF with all its improvements.

Re the various attributes, different weapons, qualities and experience that can be assigned/obtained by individual units, how much are they taken into account in the PBEM battle/siege resolution calculations?



jchastain -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/22/2006 6:14:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad
Re the various attributes, different weapons, qualities and experience that can be assigned/obtained by individual units, how much are they taken into account in the PBEM battle/siege resolution calculations?


Quick combat actually plays out with units targeting and firing at each other, breaking and potentially later rallying. It is all just done automatically in the background. I assume the instant combat in PBEM is handled using this same mechanism, though I cannot be sure of that. But weapons are still very important in Quick Combat. Quality = morale and is also important. We have asked and been told that all attributed also apply and are valuable in rough proportion to their cost. So I assume that each unit's firepower is modified based on attributes present with the unit. Again, that is rough conjecture on my part based on what we have been told. The bottom line though is that upgrading the quality of your units continues to be very important regardless of whether or not you choose to play out the detailed battles.

Sieges are a little different. Essentially siege capability is independent of combat capability. There is an engineering attribute that can be added to units that really is essential to successful sieging and that grows in effectiveness with your siege engineering technology. That attribute helps in sieges but not in combat (while the rest help in combat but not in sieges). Similarly siege artillery is different than combat artillery. Since there are no "detailed" sieges, the siege system is the same in PBEM as it is in a "regular" game. And building up your engineering and siege artillery (which I did not do very effectively) is very important to performing effective sieges.



Ironclad -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/22/2006 8:17:47 PM)

Thanks. Somewhere I had read that instant combat was a third category of combat which had puzzled me - thinking there must be a formula adding up all the adjusted individual unit scores for each side. It makes sense if this is just the quick battle outcome translated for PBEM purposes.

Presumably generals and command staffs are factored into this as well? Is that similarly aggregated to up each unit's charge, fire and rallying score?

I always preferred detailed battle myself and have never played PBEM COG so have no experience of its combat resolution. How would you rate FOF's PBEM combat by comparison with COG?



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/22/2006 8:36:43 PM)

As programmer, Eric will have to give more info about the QC system. Regarding instant resolve, I'd like to clear up an incorrect statement I made earlier.

When a battle begins, the player can choose a detailed battle, quick combat, or instant resolve. Quick combat and instant resolve are the same thing programmingwise, except that in quick combat the player has the option of arranging his units and then watching the fighting take place. But there is another type of instant resolve, which is the one I was thinking of the time I said that instant resolve is different: if you are in the middle of a detailed battle and want to finish it right away, you can choose an instant resolve option that then calculates the winner, but does so in a way different from quick combat (since if you don't start a battle in quick combat you can't finish it in quick combat). PBEM battles are essentially quick combat, but done as instant resolves.




Ironclad -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/22/2006 9:05:21 PM)

Thanks Gil. It was the PBEM instant resolve I had in mind.

In turn let me withdraw my reference to COG Quick Battle's reputation - previous post now edited. Its fairer to say that the forum responses suggest it is less popular than Detailed Battle.

Along with many others I am keenly awaiting the outcome of the current move in your PBEM game. Great stuff.




Harvey Birdman -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/24/2006 6:31:42 PM)

jastain & Gil   It was fun reading your aar threads.[:)]

Is scouting on the strategic map one province with calvary units having a better % chance to see an extra province; like in CoG?

How many brigades in a division, corps and army container?
Are there brigade limits to the size of a battle?

Are the USA troops sieging Jackson getting supply from the railroad from USA controlled Yazoo?



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/24/2006 6:49:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harvey Birdman

jastain & Gil It was fun reading your aar threads.[:)]

Is scouting on the strategic map one province with calvary units having a better % chance to see an extra province; like in CoG?

Raiders and Partisans help with this, as does the "Scouts" attribute one purchases for brigades

How many brigades in a division, corps and army container?

USA divisions hold 5 brigades, CSA hold 6; USA corps hold 15 brigades, CSA 18; USA armies hold 35 brigades, CSA hold 42.

Are there brigade limits to the size of a battle?

Yes, if too many forces are in a province then some do not enter the battle at the start.

Are the USA troops sieging Jackson getting supply from the railroad from USA controlled Yazoo?



Harvey Birdman -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/24/2006 8:26:43 PM)

What are all the possible brigade attributes? Sharpshooter, artillery, calvary, engineer and scouting? Can you put 2 or more different attributes onto one brigade?

Should be lots of fun to whip those crappy starting oob's for either side and get it into decent shape.[:D]



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/25/2006 1:49:45 AM)

I don't have the brigade attributes in a file that could easily be used for cutting and pasting, so seeing a full list will have to wait until the game is available. But if you've been watching the PBEM AAR you've seen a bunch -- Brigade Artillery, Horse Artillery, Scouts, Sharpshooters, etc.



Ironclad -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/25/2006 1:45:45 PM)

I seem to recall a list of all the attributes being posted in the AAR threads (try jchastain's).



ratters72 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/25/2006 2:39:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain


quote:

ORIGINAL: miller41

Is the Game AI any good? I am sure I will play PBEM but would sure be glad if the computer can fight a decent fight?



There was quite a bit of discussion on this earlier. The AI is decent, but it can't beat an experienced human player on an even playing field. The game has incremental difficulty levels that slowly stack the deck against you (through scaling with progressively worse multipliers rather than outright cheating) so that the upper levels become quite nasty.


Hi jchastain,

I'm sure this has been asked elsewhere and without trying to put words in your mouth but.... would you say the battlefield AI has improved dramatically since CoG?? I know this is a difficult question to answer as it is somewhat subjective but just wanted some assurance to levels of improvement.

And if I could throw another question out there while I remember...Will there be any warnings on changes in the weather before they actually occur? In CoG you didnt know what changes were coming. I guess that's the problem with top down view, you can't look at the sky.



jchastain -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 3:44:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ratters72
Hi jchastain,

I'm sure this has been asked elsewhere and without trying to put words in your mouth but.... would you say the battlefield AI has improved dramatically since CoG?? I know this is a difficult question to answer as it is somewhat subjective but just wanted some assurance to levels of improvement.


I find it to be much more challenging than COG. As much as I loved COG, I could beat the detailed battle AI in the first game I played. Even with that experience under my belt, the AI was more competitive in FOF. That said, a human player still holds the advantage. From reading Hard Sarge's AARs, you'll see the domination that is possible from a top notch human player. One change that was made late in the beta (based partially on the conversation here) was to make detailed combat even more difficult at the highest difficulty levels in order to ensure a challenge for even the most experienced players.

quote:

And if I could throw another question out there while I remember...Will there be any warnings on changes in the weather before they actually occur? In CoG you didnt know what changes were coming. I guess that's the problem with top down view, you can't look at the sky.


Nope. Weather still changes without notice. Accuweather radar for better visibility into upcoming changes is a tech advance you can get.... just kidding. It is what it is.



ratters72 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 6:15:03 AM)

Thanks Jchastain,

That puts my mind at ease.  I know its almost impossible to code an AI that can ruthless and plan strategic attacks/defence like a human.  I'm not sure how its coded but I dont mind if the AI was to know exactly where all my brigades were if this would enable them to take advantage of the situation.  Hell, I dont mind if they even got to cheat a bit.  Perhaps if they could even withdraw a dumb move now again and start over.

Anyway, really looking forward to FoF.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 8:55:28 AM)

I'll add that the AI is very good at capitalizing on mistakes. If you send a brigade to the wrong point and it's exposed the AI will pounce on it, not unlike what you'd see on some nature show when an animal strays too far from the herd.



Mike Scholl -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 1:39:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'll add that the AI is very good at capitalizing on mistakes. If you send a brigade to the wrong point and it's exposed the AI will pounce on it, not unlike what you'd see on some nature show when an animal strays too far from the herd.



Hope this doesn't mean you can pull the old trick of marching one weak "sacrificial Brigade" out into the middle of nowhere to "suck away" the "AoNV", then march unapposed to Richmond through the hole created.



Tophat1815 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 4:23:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'll add that the AI is very good at capitalizing on mistakes. If you send a brigade to the wrong point and it's exposed the AI will pounce on it, not unlike what you'd see on some nature show when an animal strays too far from the herd.



Hope this doesn't mean you can pull the old trick of marching one weak "sacrificial Brigade" out into the middle of nowhere to "suck away" the "AoNV", then march unapposed to Richmond through the hole created.



Can you do something novel and say what,if anything,you like about the game Mike?



Mike Scholl -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 5:23:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'll add that the AI is very good at capitalizing on mistakes. If you send a brigade to the wrong point and it's exposed the AI will pounce on it, not unlike what you'd see on some nature show when an animal strays too far from the herd.



Hope this doesn't mean you can pull the old trick of marching one weak "sacrificial Brigade" out into the middle of nowhere to "suck away" the "AoNV", then march unapposed to Richmond through the hole created.



Can you do something novel and say what,if anything,you like about the game Mike?



I like pointing out the potential problems and errors. Who knows..., maybe someday folks will actually listen and get it right. Happy?

Seriously, If I didn't like the basic premise and scale of what they are attempting, I wouldn't bother to contribute to this forum at all. I think it's a promising design with a lot of potential, and based on the ARR I've seen it offers a lot of challenge and playability. But the same AAR, like Gil's comment above, also raises some questions and reveals some built-in historical errors. So I mention them in hopes of making a good product better. That's the whole idea of a forum---to discuss ideas and observations. If all you want to do is say "Rah Rah Rah" to the project, what's the point of saying anything? No matter how much you "pat the designers on the back", you will still have to pay for the game. I plan to buy it, but that doesn't mean it will be "perfect" or even "exellent" or "good". You can hope, but until you can play it yourself, you don't know. I keep mentioning things now because if something didn't make it into the design, it might still make it into the version 1.1 patch.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 5:36:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'll add that the AI is very good at capitalizing on mistakes. If you send a brigade to the wrong point and it's exposed the AI will pounce on it, not unlike what you'd see on some nature show when an animal strays too far from the herd.



Hope this doesn't mean you can pull the old trick of marching one weak "sacrificial Brigade" out into the middle of nowhere to "suck away" the "AoNV", then march unapposed to Richmond through the hole created.




No, of course not. This refers to tactical battles, and those involve defeating the enemy, not sneaking around them. A brigade that is vulnerable to the enemy will be pounced on by one or two, or perhaps three, other brigades. If the entire ANV is in that battle then the AI will keep the rest of it where it needs to be.



Tophat1815 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 6:20:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'll add that the AI is very good at capitalizing on mistakes. If you send a brigade to the wrong point and it's exposed the AI will pounce on it, not unlike what you'd see on some nature show when an animal strays too far from the herd.



Hope this doesn't mean you can pull the old trick of marching one weak "sacrificial Brigade" out into the middle of nowhere to "suck away" the "AoNV", then march unapposed to Richmond through the hole created.



Can you do something novel and say what,if anything,you like about the game Mike?



I like pointing out the potential problems and errors. Who knows..., maybe someday folks will actually listen and get it right. Happy?

Seriously, If I didn't like the basic premise and scale of what they are attempting, I wouldn't bother to contribute to this forum at all. I think it's a promising design with a lot of potential, and based on the ARR I've seen it offers a lot of challenge and playability. But the same AAR, like Gil's comment above, also raises some questions and reveals some built-in historical errors. So I mention them in hopes of making a good product better. That's the whole idea of a forum---to discuss ideas and observations. If all you want to do is say "Rah Rah Rah" to the project, what's the point of saying anything? No matter how much you "pat the designers on the back", you will still have to pay for the game. I plan to buy it, but that doesn't mean it will be "perfect" or even "exellent" or "good". You can hope, but until you can play it yourself, you don't know. I keep mentioning things now because if something didn't make it into the design, it might still make it into the version 1.1 patch.


I was actually "happy" to see this:Seriously, If I didn't like the basic premise and scale of what they are attempting, I wouldn't bother to contribute to this forum at all. I think it's a promising design with a lot of potential, and based on the ARR I've seen it offers a lot of challenge and playability.

But the same AAR, like Gil's comment above, also raises some questions and reveals some built-in historical errors.possibly,but i think you need to play the game to get the feel for how true to the ACW it plays.Will it cover every point? ofcourse not.

So I mention them in hopes of making a good product better. That's the whole idea of a forum---to discuss ideas and observations. If all you want to do is say "Rah Rah Rah" to the project, what's the point of saying anything? No matter how much you "pat the designers on the back", you will still have to pay for the game.Thanks for the explanation of how a forum works.Are you implying i'm a mindless fanboy? Or fishing for a free game? [:D]

I plan to buy it, but that doesn't mean it will be "perfect" or even "exellent" or "good". You can hope, but until you can play it yourself, you don't know. I keep mentioning things now because if something didn't make it into the design, it might still make it into the version 1.1 patch.
I plan on buying it myself at the first opportunity and after playing it several weeks i'll let you know what I think as well.You never know,after playing the game i might have a frame of reference to offer some suggestions myself.[:)]



Mike Scholl -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/26/2006 6:47:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

[ I was actually "happy" to see this:Seriously, If I didn't like the basic premise and scale of what they are attempting, I wouldn't bother to contribute to this forum at all. I think it's a promising design with a lot of potential, and based on the ARR I've seen it offers a lot of challenge and playability. Always happy to brighten someone's day.

But the same AAR, like Gil's comment above, also raises some questions and reveals some built-in historical errors.possibly,but i think you need to play the game to get the feel for how true to the ACW it plays.Will it cover every point? ofcourse not. Didn't ask it to cover every point. Just to be accurate in what it choses to cover. And when it says the ratio of "Money Available" between the South and the North is 9:11, it's WAY out of the "Ballpark". Stretching reality is one thing..., beating it out of all reccognition is another.

So I mention them in hopes of making a good product better. That's the whole idea of a forum---to discuss ideas and observations. If all you want to do is say "Rah Rah Rah" to the project, what's the point of saying anything? No matter how much you "pat the designers on the back", you will still have to pay for the game.Thanks for the explanation of how a forum works.Are you implying i'm a mindless fanboy? Or fishing for a free game? [:D] Actually, I was making a point opposite what most poster's seem to be saying. If you don't have anything NEGATIVE to say, why bother to say anything? To be of some use to the designer's, you have to offer a differing viewpoint or information. If everybody thinks everything is great and perfect, what's the point of a forum? They could just post screenshots and let us know when it's available.

I plan to buy it, but that doesn't mean it will be "perfect" or even "exellent" or "good". You can hope, but until you can play it yourself, you don't know. I keep mentioning things now because if something didn't make it into the design, it might still make it into the version 1.1 patch.
I plan on buying it myself at the first opportunity and after playing it several weeks i'll let you know what I think as well. You never know,after playing the game i might have a frame of reference to offer some suggestions myself.[:)] I only offered comments on what was posted in the AAR. I too will be eagerly awaiting my copy of the game's arrival...



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.046875