A few notes from the patch in testing... (Full Version)

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



Message

Erik Rutins -> A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 3:42:22 AM)

I thought some of you would be interested in a few of the change notes from the upcoming patch that's currently in testing. Read carefully and enjoy, but note these are just a few excerpts from a longer list and that while in development and testing, everything is still subject to change... [8D] That means no complaining. [;)]

13) CHANGE V1.2.4: Add disease variables to AcwConstants file.

16) FIX V1.2.4: Prefer to retreat to home provinces w/o enemies

24) FIXED: V1.2.4: 6pdr no icon in quick combat?

44) CHANGE V1.2.4: Move supply caissons back behind line.

45a) CHANGED V1.2.4: Filters on City List for Ironworks and Universities.

53) CHANGE V1.2.5: Can now click on names of cities in Cities List to open City Details for the clicked city.

61) CHANGED V1.2.5: When "Advanced Buildings" option is off, USA now gets base 8,000 reinforcements per turn, CSA gets 4,000.

73) FIXED V1.2.5: US/CS have swapped victory songs.

78) CHANGED V1.2.5: Academies now provide more ranks. Each Academy allows:
3 Two-Star Generals
2 Three-Star Generals
1 Four-Star General
Furthermore, it now only requires 7 Academies to obtain a Five-Star general.
The cost of Academies has been increased to 150 Money.

79) CHANGED V1.2.5: Added promotion button to generals' Command Box. Any number of generals may be promoted in a turn this way.

80) CHANGED V1.2.5: Demoted generals now have a 50% chance to resign in protest.

88) CHANGED V1.2.5: No randomly legendary indians/freedmen/british/french

65) CHANGE V1.2.7: Lowered QB damage cap and lowered QB pursuit losses.

83) CHANGE V1.2.7: A brigade with a Medical Attribute now lowers disease losses by 20% for all units directly attached to the same military group or fort; brigades with two Medical Attributes lower disease losses by 40%. This supercedes the old rule under which the Medical Attribute reduced disease losses by 50% only for the brigade with the attribute.

90) CHANGED V1.2.7: Can no longer buy new plantations after emancipation.

94) CHANGE V1.2.7: Training grounds now provide +.2 quality to all newly built units in the same state.

95) CHANGE V1.2.7: March attrition, chance of lowering disposition has been increased from 5% to 6.25%; this chance is now doubled while force-marching to 13%.

95a) CHANGE V1.2.7: Loss from march attrition is now dependent on disposition:
Rebellious: Loss is 10%
Disorganized: Loss is 5%
Low: Loss is 2.5%
Normal: Loss is 1.25%
Inspired: Loss is .83%
Zealous: Loss is .5%

97) CHANGED V1.2.7: Added flags to Overview/Statistics screen and thickened statistics lines.

105) CHANGE V1.3.0: Strategic supply now reduces losses from disease; every level of strategic supply reduces base disease casualties by 5%. Units at zero strategic supply, however, take 50% more casualties from disease.

105a) Disease casualties penalty from swamps increased from 10% to 25%.

105b) Base disease casualties reduced from a Gaussian distribution around 15% to a Gaussian distribution around 11%.

109) NEW FEATURE V1.3.0: PBEM Replay. In PBEM games, after the Movement Phase has been completed, a replay file will be created in the PBEM directory with the following nomenclature: <GAMENAME>_Replay_<TurnNumber>.<sve|rep>. The USA player may load this file, view the replay, and then take his turn in lieu of loading his normal turn file, if he wishes; the CSA player may view this file, but cannot take his turn immediately after viewing this file as the USA player can. When the replay file is loaded, the player will be prompted to choose either the USA or the CSA as the "viewing" player -- a password check will be initiated if players have chosen passwords. Note that the replay file is a PBEM game file, and as such must be loaded from the "Load PBEM" option from the main-screen; attempting to load it in-game will result in an attempt to convert the file to a single-player game format.

110) CHANGE V1.3.0: Infantry attacking other infantry in quick combat now have their damage adjusted closer to the average damage dealt by both units.

111) CHANGE V1.3.0: Added battle history and battle animation replay to statistics screen.



scott64 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 3:54:39 AM)

Nice [:)][8D]



Gray_Lensman -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 3:57:48 AM)

As usual for Matrix, this is a great beginning response to some major FOF gamer concerns. My only question is approx. when is this due for a release? We're anxious to begin playing with some of these fixes and enhancements so that we can point out other areas of concern. I hope you are not going to try to fix everything in one go and delay the update for weeks if not months.



rook749 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 5:19:36 AM)

Thanks for the update Erik.

Rook



Shoot Me_I Explode -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 5:57:12 AM)

Are you planning on making any changes to camps in the next patch?



regularbird -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 6:31:10 AM)

Camps really do need to be addressed



chris0827 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 6:39:03 AM)

Personally I'd put a camp in each state capitol at the start of the game and change it so they can't be built.



Walloc -> Question about academy (1/9/2007 11:17:56 AM)

78) CHANGED V1.2.5: Academies now provide more ranks. Each Academy allows:
3 Two-Star Generals
2 Three-Star Generals
1 Four-Star General
Furthermore, it now only requires 7 Academies to obtain a Five-Star general.
The cost of Academies has been increased to 150 Money.


With that change, will the ratio of Academies needed to upgrade container staff be altered too?
Its 1 to 5 pre patch with the upped costs of academies shouldnt it be lowered to 1 to 3 or 4? not to remove / outbalance the possibilty of getting better better staffs?
Know u not directly involved Erik, but it might be passed on to Eric. Less he checks all the posts on the forum ;-)´


Kind regards,

Wally



christof139 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 1:05:02 PM)

Hi Erik,

You have been very busy, thanx. I left a message for HS and you that the Napoleon is also not showing itself in my QC, but rightclickicking shows all the stats, and the gun can be placed and it does fire.

I have previously applied the patch, but maybe I should do this again, and if I do, will it mess-up my present saved game??

Thanx, Chris



GBS -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 1:07:02 PM)

I hope it comes soon. I won as CSA and don't want to start a new game until it is patched.



elmo3 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 1:16:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

...That means no complaining... [;)]



With this crowd?! You are a funny man Erik.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 2:43:29 PM)

Thanks for the advance information! The changes generally sound sensible and useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
53) CHANGE V1.2.5: Can now click on names of cities in Cities List to open City Details for the clicked city.


Excellent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
61) CHANGED V1.2.5: When "Advanced Buildings" option is off, USA now gets base 8,000 reinforcements per turn, CSA gets 4,000.


This seems reasonable enough to me, but I still think it should be affected by loss of territory -- in which case the base CS figure (without loss of territory) should probably be higher, because in reality the CSA lost territory steadily throughout the war.

I understand that the Basic game should be simple, but making this kind of refinement to the program's calculations doesn't make the game any more difficult to play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
73) FIXED V1.2.5: US/CS have swapped victory songs.


How sporting of them! Jolly good show, chaps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
65) CHANGE V1.2.7: Lowered QB damage cap and lowered QB pursuit losses.


Yes, the pursuit losses seem to have been a bit over the top for the ACW. What is the damage cap?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
90) CHANGED V1.2.7: Can no longer buy new plantations after emancipation.


Not sure about this. What's the logic of it? Also worth bearing in mind that a 'plantation' in the game is a rather artificial concept, not really simulating a plantation in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
109) NEW FEATURE V1.3.0: PBEM Replay.


Sounds good. Nice to have something of the sort.



Hard Sarge -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 2:48:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

Hi Erik,

You have been very busy, thanx. I left a message for HS and you that the Napoleon is also not showing itself in my QC, but rightclickicking shows all the stats, and the gun can be placed and it does fire.

I have previously applied the patch, but maybe I should do this again, and if I do, will it mess-up my present saved game??

Thanx, Chris



hi Chris, okay I think what I meant to say, was we got it corrected in the patches I have been working with (I get so many changes, I forgot what is in and what is not in yet)




Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 3:24:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
Personally I'd put a camp in each state capitol at the start of the game and change it so they can't be built.


I like this idea in a way, except that in reality the populations of the states were very unequal, so the loss of recruits when losing a state should be somewhat related to its population.



ericbabe -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 6:34:25 PM)

Thanks for all the feedback, gentlemen.  We are trying to address the issues that seem to us to be getting the most attention.  We can't keep patching forever and ever, so it's important for us to identify the most important areas of interest and address those.  We are decidedly not trying to do everything in one patch, but we are trying to do the few things that seem to be getting the most interest, subject to constraints based on how difficult those things are to do, of course.

As far as camps go, speaking of an area which has a lot of interest, we're talking about (1) making the cost of additional camps in a city progressive beyond the first camp, (2) tying the reinforcement rate from a camp into the population of the province, perhaps 300+15*Men -- if the advanced population rules are on, then this would be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it would just be the maximum Men for the province, and (3) giving camps a chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn.





General Quarters -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 8:12:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


105) CHANGE V1.3.0: Strategic supply now reduces losses from disease; every level of strategic supply reduces base disease casualties by 5%. Units at zero strategic supply, however, take 50% more casualties from disease.

105a) Disease casualties penalty from swamps increased from 10% to 25%.

105b) Base disease casualties reduced from a Gaussian distribution around 15% to a Gaussian distribution around 11%.



In general, lots of great improvements. Thanks, guys.

The 105 change linking supply level and disease seems very smart. It makes sense historically and also in terms of game play. However, it could increase the demand for gold, in effect, making everything else more difficult to buy.

I find the only way to get enough gold to build vital 100-gold buildings, containers, weapons, etc., is to keep lots of forces on No Supply and almost none above Low Supply. If supply protects against the dead scourge of disease, then it will be very desirable not to use this ... well, to call it an ugly name ... "exploit."

I hope your play-testers will check to see that this improvement does not inadvertantly dis-improve something else.



chris0827 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 8:40:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
Personally I'd put a camp in each state capitol at the start of the game and change it so they can't be built.


I like this idea in a way, except that in reality the populations of the states were very unequal, so the loss of recruits when losing a state should be somewhat related to its population.


I was just suggesting something that could be done quickly. It would be more accurate to tie it to the state populations.



ericbabe -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 8:47:02 PM)

We did drastically reduce the cost of containers as well.  I read over all my notes on diseases again.  The worst-hit regiments seem to have been northern regiments operating in southern swampy areas that were low on certain supplies -- hence the increased emphasis of swamps and the new rule on strategic supply.



Berkut -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 9:01:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

We did drastically reduce the cost of containers as well. I read over all my notes on diseases again. The worst-hit regiments seem to have been northern regiments operating in southern swampy areas that were low on certain supplies -- hence the increased emphasis of swamps and the new rule on strategic supply.


That makes decent sense - make the danger of disease something you tolerate most of the time, but ahve to pay active attention to when campaigning in areas that are disease prone.



General Quarters -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 9:19:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

We did drastically reduce the cost of containers as well.  I read over all my notes on diseases again.  The worst-hit regiments seem to have been northern regiments operating in southern swampy areas that were low on certain supplies -- hence the increased emphasis of swamps and the new rule on strategic supply.


I gather this is responding to my concern that adding a supply factor to disease, which seems like an excellent move, verified by your research, could nevertheless add further to the desperate need for gold to meet other hard-pressed needs.

One would expect that reducing the cost of containers and needing fewer academies should help offset that pressure. However, playing as the Union, I rarely buy either containers or academies until late 63 or early 64. Equipting my troops and fleets, starting some research, meeting the most urgent of governors' demands, and the high cost of diplomacy take almost all my gold the first couple of years.

In other words, the counterbalancing does not come when it is most needed.



christof139 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 11:22:34 PM)

Hello HS,

OK and thanx. So, I won't repatch the game, as that part of my question is unanswered.

Also, I am using the July, 1861 Mod by W. Amos, and I don't know if that may have anything to do with this bug.

Chris



Queeg -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 11:32:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

As far as camps go, speaking of an area which has a lot of interest, we're talking about (1) making the cost of additional camps in a city progressive beyond the first camp, (2) tying the reinforcement rate from a camp into the population of the province, perhaps 300+15*Men -- if the advanced population rules are on, then this would be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it would just be the maximum Men for the province, and (3) giving camps a chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn.



I like these ideas.



christof139 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 11:43:50 PM)

There are many problems with disease. One of them is that after the initial onset of disease, the troops that survive are not continually decimated in a major manner, but are continuously reduced in number in a minor manner, as some immunity may be built-up in the troops overtime etc. Also, troops returning from the sick lists would be continually returning to the unit. So, I just play without disease. Disease can make you sneeze, and I don't like sneezing. Achoo.  See what I mean?? [8|]

I will try the disease-on feature in the future when the weather warms up again.

It would be interesting to differentiate what type of disease is affecting a body of troops too, as there were many types as you know, dealing out permanent and oft times only temporary losses to the troop strength. However, generic disease is also OK as you have it, since I don't use it anyway now, but may try it in the future.

Very interesting.

About the not being able to purchase plantations after emancipation thing. In slave holding areas liberated during the war, the Union and local planters employed tens of thousnads of freedmen on the same plantations and even expanded some, to raise the same crops that were raised when the area was a slaveholding area. So, since plantations represent a combination of agricultural etc. industries, I wonder about the wisdom of stopping plantations from being built.

In Louisiana, when areas were on the verge of or being overrun by Union forces, many of the planters and their slaves and even freedmen moved to Texas where new palntations and farms and other industries were got up and going, and this occurred in other southern areas as well but to a much lesser degree.

A tough call to make concerning plantations and emancipation.

Chris







Erik Rutins -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/9/2007 11:50:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
About the not being able to purchase plantations after emancipation thing. In slave holding areas liberated during the war, the Union and local planters employed tens of thousnads of freedmen on the same plantations and even expanded some, to raise the same crops that were raised when the area was a slaveholding area. So, since plantations represent a combination of agricultural etc. industries, I wonder about the wisdom of stopping plantations from being built.


To be clear, this change is related to _Confederate_ emancipation, not Union emancipation. If the CSA emancipation option is on and the CSA decides to do it, they won't be able to build new plantations. What you're describing mainly describes using existing plantations, not building new ones.

Regards,

- Erik



Queeg -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/10/2007 12:00:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

There are many problems with disease. One of them is that after the initial onset of disease, the troops that survive are not continually decimated in a major manner, but are continuously reduced in number in a minor manner, as some immunity may be built-up in the troops overtime etc. Also, troops returning from the sick lists would be continually returning to the unit. So, I just play without disease. Disease can make you sneeze, and I don't like sneezing. Achoo. See what I mean?? [8|]

I will try the disease-on feature in the future when the weather warms up again.

It would be interesting to differentiate what type of disease is affecting a body of troops too, as there were many types as you know, dealing out permanent and oft times only temporary losses to the troop strength. However, generic disease is also OK as you have it, since I don't use it anyway now, but may try it in the future.



Some of the criticisms of the disease model, I think, are a bit too literal-minded. (Not necessarily yours, but some I've seen elsewhere.) I view the disease model principally as a constraint to discourage the gamey tactic, so prevalent in most games, of allowing perpetual uber-stacks on the front lines. To me, that's its primary function and utility - and I very much like the fact that the designers here have attempted to add a constraint here. I don't especially care whether it models hyper-realistic rates of illness or immunity or medical care. The key question, for me, is does the model force the player to act more realistically in terms of troop dispersion? While the numbers perhaps could be tweaked a bit, I like the fact that the game imposes a penalty if you don't disperse your troops. And since hospitals can be built only in cities and cities often are remote to the front lines, it forces the player to adopt the practice of moving his forces into winter quarters, away from the front lines - which certainly was a necessary and common practice at the time. The overall effect, on balance, is to encourage more realistic behavior. And that's a good thing, in my view.



Berkut -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/10/2007 12:08:43 AM)

What is this uber stack you are speaking of?

Because each area in this game encompasses hundreds and hundreds of square miles. This is an area based game, not hex.

So the "uber" stacks youa re talking about? They actually existed. While sometimes armies were broken up do to foraging/supply issues (Longstreets Corps being sent away in 1864, IIRC, for example) the idea that the game needs some mechanism to force the players to spread out is simply fallacious. Preumably, they ARE spread out, all within the area they occupy.

I don't ahve any real problem with the winter dispersion, but disease hits in the summer as well. I would REALLY like to see the historical evidence that suggests that Armies at the time were not concentrated at the scale the game represents.



christof139 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/10/2007 12:19:10 AM)

Hi, Yes, disease does add an interesting and realistic facet to the game, and i wil probably try it in the future. If it is possible to lower the disease casualties by modding I can do that myself as i deem appropriate for game play. I don't know of any major campaign that was completely stopped from the affects of disease, although some units were totally incapacitated, and I saw some of the disease casualty numbers and they scared me.

I think it is a good game feature to have, and the main reason I am not using it is because I am still learning the game, but if disease is an uber-inhibiting thing, then I won't use it as it will skew the game and make it unrealistic.

I can hopefully mod it as I personally see fit, and I don't know if that can or cannot be done. I would make disease as a fairly simple deal, that simply reduces troop strength a bit and not totally decimate and incapacitate entire containers, maybe a brigade or two might become totally incapacitated, but not wiped out due to disease, and that did not happen in the ACW, what did happen was temporary incapacitation of units.

Disease is a hard thing to model in any simulation.

Chris




Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/10/2007 12:19:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
About the not being able to purchase plantations after emancipation thing. In slave holding areas liberated during the war, the Union and local planters employed tens of thousnads of freedmen on the same plantations and even expanded some, to raise the same crops that were raised when the area was a slaveholding area. So, since plantations represent a combination of agricultural etc. industries, I wonder about the wisdom of stopping plantations from being built.


To be clear, this change is related to _Confederate_ emancipation, not Union emancipation. If the CSA emancipation option is on and the CSA decides to do it, they won't be able to build new plantations. What you're describing mainly describes using existing plantations, not building new ones.


So the Confederacy can't build plantations without slaves -- but the Union can?

It seems rather odd to me. Is slavery really necessary for plantations? Surely the same amount of labour is available, more or less, whether it's slave or free. Most recently-freed slaves probably wouldn't have had a lot of better employment opportunities. If new plantations could have been built with slavery, probably they could have been built without it, too.

In fact I rather doubt that many new Southern plantations were built during the war, even with slavery. The economy was going downhill, it was difficult to get exports out of the country, and a lot of white men were in the army. Anyone investing in a new plantation would have needed money, slaves or workers, overseers, and a whole lot of optimism that the investment would pay off somehow.



christof139 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/10/2007 12:35:09 AM)

Hi Erik,

Yes, I know and that is what I stated. However, new palntations/farms were indeed built in the South during the war as I explained, partcularily in Texas by fleeing Louisianians and Arkansans.

So, what happens in the game if new palntations/farms can't be built after Emancipation??

Does the South have to completely rely on exisiting plantations, or do you have something else in the works to portray the affect of this.

Many Southern Blacks remained with their owners and indeed previous owners during and after the war, so Emancipation would not necessarily have depleted the South's work force, and may have actually added to the production of food and other items. Many blacks were also employed in the war industry and were paid the same as their white counterparts, without Emancipation.

Many Blacks did consider themselves Southerners and contributed to the Southern war effort, including serving in the ranks and fighting, so Emancipation may have the opposite affect of what some people may envision. That is, Emancipation may very well indeed have increased the agricultural and industrial output of the South rather than have hindered them.

A very hard problem to decipher.

Chris, a Yankee in Detroit, MI




christof139 -> RE: A few notes from the patch in testing... (1/10/2007 12:40:26 AM)

You would have to read in detail about the war in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas to know what I am talking about. New plantations/farms were indeed built and succesfully operated in texas as explained, and yes, not many when considering the entire South, but an amount that was significant when any and all resources were utilized to the extreme.

See my other post about the possible and unkown affects of Southern Emancipation.

It's a hard thing to decipher and predict as to what would or would not have actually happend.

Chris



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375