RE: ETA on the Patch (Full Version)

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



Message

Wahoo -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 7:15:51 AM)

I seek no quarrel, may it be blatant or subtle, it is what it is. I agree with chritof139 when he states: Yes, it is a bit warped. So, don't go there, but don't make a big and stupid deal about it because there are all sorts of people of every race, nationality, and denomination in our little world that are a bit screwy. Nothing new there.

I thought I explained myself clearly b/f concerning the Confederacy.  Either way lets move on, no need for name calling, belittling others for there views/etc. or the like.  And agreed to the carpet baggers were bums as Andrew Johnson, wonder if Lincoln would have screwed up reconstruction? (history buffs' question. we'll never know)



Curious -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 8:08:28 AM)

So be it. If you have a special "gift" please use it wisely. Time to move on.

You do raise an interesting question: How would reconstruction actually have played out if Ol' Abe had been at the helm?

CB

p.s. This is a reply to Wahoo (regardless of what it says below here).



chicago227 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 10:16:34 AM)

Yeah, would a long occupation done the trick? I think he would have had a softer touch and the reunification would have been better.  I think the Andrew Johnson vs Congress battle did not help ease southern concerns.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 5:23:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
***"Wednesday, September 10: At 4 o'clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until 8 o'clock P.M., occupying 16 hours. The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the number. . . . They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde."


Interesting. These "Over 3,000 Negroes" were free men, presumably? Have you come across any other similar reports?



Johnus -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 6:58:27 PM)

Bact to the original subject of the thread. Eight weeks and counting on the patch.



christof139 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 8:27:08 PM)

quote:

Interesting. These "Over 3,000 Negroes" were free men, presumably? Have you come across any other similar reports?


Yes, I have quite a list of sources and exerpts, and yes some were free and more not. There was a battery of the richmond Howitzers at 1st BR that had quite a few AF-AM members, and they did fight and die.

Much has come to light over the years. many of the best info. on Black Confeds. comes from the research done by some very good AF-AM scholars.

I hope you aren't going sycophant and creating a 'you must be a biggott and support slavery type of thing' here.

Many Southern AF-Am's served in the Confed. Armed Forces, a few fought, thousands actually, and most served in support roles as teamsters, armorers, and engineers-pioneers. Estimates range up to 65,000 or so as being in the Confed. Armed Forces, and many recieved State pensions after the war and were quite proud of and loyal in their service to their homeland, the South. I do believe the Commonwealth of Virginia even gave pensions to those working in the war industry that may have not even been in the Confed. Armed Forces, and supposedly VA gave more war related pensions to Virginian AF-AM's than the USA Government did!!!!!

If you want I can post a lot of excellent info about this, including reports from Union soldiers that had to fight Black Confeds., and that was indeed an eye-opener for those Union troops, and the Press and people back home.

NB Forrest went to war with 44 or 45 of his Slaves, and when he realized the South was going to lose he freed them as he promised. During their service with Forrest these troops fought and some were part of his bodyguard/Escort. Forrest actively recruited AF-AM's into his units, and they did fight, and fight well, as many a Northen trooper has related too this.

You see, many AF-AMs considered themselves Southerners, and many Freedmen in the South before the war owned Slaves. A very complicated situation.

The US Civil War was indeed a Civil War amongst all our ethnic groups. There was also a famous AF-AM Southern Engineer that built many bridges in the South during the war and also helped build a couple of CSA Navy Yards, etc.

There is a plethora of accurate info. about all this that will give the unlearned much deeper insight into the US Civil War.

Just tell me and I can post a very large amount of info. concerning this.

Chris





fortdick -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 9:29:47 PM)

Back to the original message (although I do find the other discussions interesting), when can we expect the patch? I haven;t played the game in about a month because I have been waiting for the patch. Can't wait to get started again.

Any idea?



Hard Sarge -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/17/2007 11:30:10 PM)

we still got a couple of issues we are working on, we nailed a major one last night, one or two more and it should be ready or close

there been a lot of work done and it is looking very nice

if nothing else, I would say to crank up a new game and work on some ideas or tricks to see how they work out and then be ready when it is ready



fortdick -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 3:15:25 AM)

thanks Sarge



jack616 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 4:38:57 AM)

like i wrote in another post...why?  why should i spend my time "practicing" strategy for an old version of  a game if the new version is completely uncompatible?  sorry....but thats not fun.  maybe it'd be more fun then waiting for patch for 30+ days....dunno.  heck, couldn't be less fun could it? 

sorry to sound bitter, but i am.  this has undoubtedly been one of the most frustrating experiences imaginable.  only one or two more problems to fix?  so based on the progress to date....i should have a finished copy of the game in what...another 30-60 days?  wow.  yippee.  glad y'all have my money.



wzh55 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 8:51:55 AM)

Ya know, I have games on my shelf that were sent out half-finished and no amount of pleading (if you could find someone

to plead to) EVER resulted in a patch, let alone listening to a bunch of whining idiots like us.

I applaud MATRIX and will continue to wait for the day when the patch with all the input received is ready to be released. So sit still and think good thoughts.[sm=00000030.gif]



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 9:48:41 AM)

Thanks for the interesting information. If you have more on the same subject, you might consider starting a new thread, as it's rather out of place here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
I hope you aren't going sycophant and creating a 'you must be a bigot and support slavery type of thing' here.


Who, me? Never crossed my mind. I'm just interested to find this aspect of the Civil War that isn't much talked about. Wikipedia's article on the CSA currently states merely that "The rank and file of the Confederate armed forces consisted of white males with an average age between 16 and 28. A few Black Freedmen also served in regular formations. Many thousands of slaves served as laborers, cooks, pioneers and in other non-combat roles."



christof139 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 9:56:38 AM)

quote:

Thanks for the interesting information. If you have more on the same subject, you might consider starting a new thread, as it's rather out of place here.


Seems someone else started this, not me.

Additionally, we can start a thread, and I have a good site with skads of documented info., also, and if someone wants to argue they can go there. I just go there to read the info. and get the sources.

Chris



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 10:06:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wzh55
I have games on my shelf that were sent out half-finished and no amount of pleading (if you could find someone to plead to) EVER resulted in a patch ...


I'd agree with this. Of course if would be nice if all games were delivered perfect at version 1, but they never are. As I see it, Western Civilization made an honest effort to give us a good game at version 1, and succeeded in some ways. It's now working hard to give us a better game.

Frankly, version 1 isn't what I wanted, and I'm not playing it. But I'll wait for version 2 and re-evaluate it. It is rather unusual for a company to be willing to make such substantial improvements to a game after release.



christof139 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 10:07:10 AM)

quote:

Who, me? Never crossed my mind. I'm just interested to find this aspect of the Civil War that isn't much talked about. Wikipedia's article on the CSA currently states merely that "The rank and file of the Confederate armed forces consisted of white males with an average age between 16 and 28. A few Black Freedmen also served in regular formations. Many thousands of slaves served as laborers, cooks, pioneers and in other non-combat roles."
quote:



Forget Wikepedia!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get real.

There is a ton of info. about this that Wikepedia and posting Wikepedians don't know about in the least bit at all.

I nor anyone else is saying the CSA Armed forces were in the main composed of AF-Am's!!! What is being said and pointed out with historical accuracy is that thousands of AF-Am's fought in the CSAAF, as well as mainly served in non-combatant roles, and without their contribution and the contribution of all the skilled and unskilled AF-AM workers that remained loyal to the South the Confederacy would not have lasted as long as it did.

Many of the AF-AM Southerners that remained loyal to the South, both military and non-military that worked in the armaments industry etc., were given pensions by the states they lived in and served. Awarding of pensions was quite prevalent in the South, seemingly more so than in the North. Most Northerners were not Abolitionists and could have cared less if the AF-Am's became free or not. Several Indian Inf. regiments mutinied when they learned that AF-Am troops were to serve in the same Army as they.

Chris




Greyhunterlp -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 1:15:05 PM)

Hmm, would people like to back away from each others throats? this forum seems on the slippery slide down into a TW forum. [X(]




Curious -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 7:13:38 PM)

Anything you say, boss.  We wouldn't want this to slide into a third world forum.

CB



General Quarters -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/18/2007 9:33:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Of course if would be nice if all games were delivered perfect at version 1, but they never are. As I see it, Western Civilization made an honest effort to give us a good game at version 1, and succeeded in some ways. It's now working hard to give us a better game.



Yes, that is my attitude. After a game is released, the designers receive vastly more input than they can prior to release. So there is some efficiency in just making it as good as they see how to do, release it, and then improve it in light of feedback from a lot of players, all of whom have different likes and dislikes. So far, I like what I see of the changes.



christof139 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/19/2007 4:45:41 AM)

Reply to those that started the sanctimonious and unkowledgeable do-do, not me.

Thank you, Chris




bubbak -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 6:06:37 PM)

(Jack616) sorry to sound bitter, but i am.  this has undoubtedly been one of the most frustrating experiences imaginable.  only one or two more problems to fix?  so based on the progress to date....i should have a finished copy of the game in what...another 30-60 days?  wow.  yippee.  glad y'all have my money.


I've got an idea they could send a copy of a game they are think of releasing to everybody that has purchased a game, then we could send in our feed back they could do a reworking on the game send us they reworked game and if we approve they could release it.[&:][&:][&:][&:][&:][8D]



Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 7:59:42 PM)

Bubbak, the idea of public betatesting is certainly something we have thought of, but right now (Feb. 21, 2007, just before 1:00 EST) that would be a bad idea because it would create way too much work for us simply to keep up with the reports we'd be getting, and would actually slow down the process of finishing the patch. For public betatesting to be valuable a patch must be free of known problems before it is released to the public, and right now we know of some bugs that we need to fix. (Essentially, to put this in a Rumsfeldian way, public betatesting is intended to find "unknown unknowns," but right now we'd have to deal with countless reports telling us about the "known knowns," and that would waste everyone's time -- testers' and development team's.)



GBS -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 8:05:58 PM)

So, is 30 to 60 days correct? I may be playing AACW by then. 



Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 8:18:40 PM)

I'd be surprised if it were to take that long. But I'm out of the game of making specific predictions. We'll keep you posted as we make progress. Right now, there is a serious detailed battle bug that was introduced by the most recent version of the beta patch (and therefore should be relatively easy to spot, I'd think), and there is a serious PBEM bug related to our new PBEM replay feature. We also have just developed a new diagnostic tool to make sure that detailed battle is working the way it should, so we're giving that a thorough check, and have another diagnostic tool that we're using to make the strategic AI's purchasing and OOB decisions smarter, so we're likewise monitoring that. There are also a small number of other issues (e.g., in PBEM for some reason we're no longer getting new generals after Turn 1), but those are the big ones. And there's no way to estimate how long it will take to fix them. Sometimes, Eric fixes a bug in less than an hour, other times it can take days. But that's what we're looking at, essentially.

Plus, I discovered last night that we only included one of the two CSA generals named R.H. Anderson (Richard vs. Robert), and we seem to have included the photo of the wrong guy, so I'm trying to fix that. Surely, no one wants us to release the patch until we have two R.H. Andersons...



chris0827 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 8:27:39 PM)

While you're adding Anderson you should add Innis Palmer and John Farnsworth.



Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 8:38:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

While you're adding Anderson you should add Innis Palmer and John Farnsworth.


Hmm. Hadn't noticed those. Okay, thanks, I'll try to get those guys in there too. Thanks!



bubbak -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 9:25:38 PM)

Gil R,

Most of my comment was directed at the you have our money part from Jack616. I guess since I picket the game up from someone who didn't like the game and not directly from Matrix maybe I don't understand, even though I paied almost as much. I have not had a lot of time to play FOF, since my wife will be out of town next weekend I'm getting ready to spend a large amount of time playing, ya I love to have the patch but if the game plays half as good as I'm reading about I'll be happy to wait, of course not forever. I played The Blue and The Gray from Impressions years ago, loved the idea of being able to build my forces where I wanted and then move them into a battle, of course you were suppose to be able to fight a minis type battle, I guess for some it worked but I mostly ended up quick fighting.

Am I right in assuming that I can build armies and move them into battle without having to worry about economics and politics that much.

Cant wait to get into this, my lap top my wife and I are going on a cruise and I've been planning on having sometime to play.



Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 9:30:50 PM)

Yes, an important part of the game is building up your armies and arranging them as you want, and if you're not that much into economics and politics you can toggle off many of those features, letting you focus on the military side. (I posted a screenshot of the revised options screen in the thread devoted to the patch's contents.)

We'll try to finish by the time of your cruise, but I'm not making any promises...



bubbak -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/21/2007 9:39:15 PM)

It's a month away, like I said if this plays as good as I think then I'll be happy right know. I like what I'm hearing for up grades to this game I realy like the Total Victory, I want to end this war when I'm good and ready to give up or I'm good and ready to let the other side give up.

If we are not VICTORIOUS then let no man come back alive.



Johnus -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 2:56:27 AM)

How about a pop up appearing when you move your cursor over a general which shows his pre-war biography, major accomplishments during the civil war, post-war biography, and a short note describing how his progeny did in subsequent wars. Dare I ask, maybe a family tree could be included.

All I wanted was the retreat bug fixed; okay, maybe also to have the confederate navy eliminated. But as long as you are doing a patch, then do a real patch. Complying with the above requests should not add much more waiting time.



chicago227 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 6:20:59 AM)

Ok soooo check back at the end of March for a bloody update on this game!!?[:@]  This is getting past ridiculous.  You guys were so great with updating WiTP making my $70 way worth the amount.

Yall coul;d have just done a simple update get rid of the time limit, fix the scoring issues, etc.  Then do the major upgrade at your own pace and avoid all the pissed off fans.

Yah I know patience..etc etc... but this is getting old. I am disappointed.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.3125