My impressions - detailed battle, etc

My impressions - detailed battle, etc (Full Version)

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

Message

d714 -> My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 12:57:18 AM)
Hello all, These are my impressions after playing a few turns as confederate, and almost up to 1864 as the yankees. I have the beta patch and played a little bit under previous versions. Current situation is that I have captured Richmond after Lee took almost his entire forces to reinforce Longstreets western corp and during the entire year of '63 we had a stalemate on the western Kentucky/western TN front between my reinforced Army of Ohio (taking divisions from the AOP) similiar to the front on the Potomac. So that left the Reb's eastern front lightly defended except for a couple divisions, it took me 6 months however to get McCellam to move his but down into Fredricksburg to Richmond. Meanwhile I had Butler break off a few division from the Army of the Potomic and capture Knoxville and the capital of SC, but my positions is tenous. Lee is now moving east. It's been an interesting game and I am enjoying it but my issues are this: 1.) On the strategic map I see the confederates have a TON of forces, much more than I have. Now I am playing on one of the lower difficulty levels so my money penalty isn't that much. But I can see each city and fort has 3 or 4 brigades, Longstreet has 60,000, Lee could have as much as 200,000 as his forces haven't had a real battle yet, and his divisions in the east still number 30k or 40k. If he pulled out his various garrison troops from down south I would be crushed. Meanwhile I am struggling to maintain maybe 250,000 total on the front lines, that's after pulling garrison troops, using tons of camps, mustering, recruiting when I can afford it, and drafting when I could get away with it (one case of drafting started riots in Connecticut and it spread to Massashucetts). How in the heck are the Confederates getting/affording so many troops? yes I am playing the european diplomatic game of matching the Rebs dollar for dollar. How I hate those meddling Europeans. I thought the Union should at least exceed the rebels in manpower. Is the AI working under the same penalties as we do? Does desease, attrition, angry governers, supply, etc effect them? 2.) Detailed battle - so frustrating! I've had to hold back from throwing my laptop against the wall on several occasions. Now I am a veteran of CWG, the old talonsoft series, etc. I understand hex warfare. I've read the directions up and down and even went into the data files to exactly understand the ground penalties, etc. It's just not intuitave! a.) Now I think what is lacking in this game is the ability to identify "good ground". Good ground is key, it was key in the actual civil war, it was key in the aforementioned games and it made hex warfare enjoyable. Here you certainly get movement penalties, but I don't see noticable defensive or offensive attributes of holding the edge of the woodlines, holding the high ground, holding the river, etc. I know there are some, i've seen the data files, it's just not noticable enough when you take everything else into the calculation. Some of this may be the limitations of the random battlefield. I don't see the long lines of ridges as was common in the Virginia landscape. I don't see dense wide wooded areas followed by the open farmland killing grounds. What I do see is a few hexes of hills, a hex of forest, a farmland hex, etc. I want the ability to use good ground. b.) What is this AI (the confederates in this case) attacking in column? In the aforementioned games (and in real life in the Civil War) attacking in column, I don't care how much morale they have or what general is leading them, would be suicide? The key to gunfire is not how many soldiers you have, it's how many guns you have firing forward. I'm amazed, I see the AI approach in column, I'm thinking "what fools" and fire and then inflict maybe 30 casualties, and then the column fires back and takes out 300 of my men! I flank them and sometimes I get the same results. Then this column gets tired of killing this particular brigade and moves 6 hexes to repeat the same process on one of my other brigades. c.) Pinning, out of command, etc. Heck if I know if that works for the AI. All I know is if I get one in trouble they move to the rear and reform. What do mine do? Stay, fire even if they are out of ammo and losing 10 to each 1 of the enemy, then eventually drop there weapons and flee the field. I love the suicide charge thing that sometimes an out of command brigade will do - right in the middle of a division of rebs usually. d.) flanking penalties - those yellow and red hexes. Ok I understand that to a certain degree. But guys I can't dig in on good ground, I can't fight face to face because of this superhuman column thing, and you penalize me if I try to flank. Let me flank in force please without my forces getting shaken once they get into those yellow hexes. e.) brigade attrition AI vs me in detailed battle - One again I fight Longstreet, OK during our last battle I know I gave them a black eye, and they put an equal number of Yanks in their grave, we both moved around and lost forces during the move. Between our last battle we had the usual round of deseases, etc. Now I fight them again with my average brigades of 2,000 or so, dang if I see Longstreet at least looking and firing as if he had full strenght brigages. I guess the AI could have put them on full supply or something. f.) OK this bothers me - fire rates. You have one turn, you have one of these AI superhuman columns. I have 3 brigades surrounding him and firing. Maybe this column has a feature that is immune to flanking, doesn't matter. But everytime I fire from these three seperate brigades the AI column returns fire to each. Now, regardless of flanking, regardless of column, etc - wouldn't it make more sense for a unit to fire ONCE during a turn. Maybe make an exception if they have upgraded weapons like spencers or something, but the way these guys fire makes me think they have AK47's. It's still a musket, fires 3 or 4 times a minute, shouldn't have them return fire to 3 or 4 different units all in the same turn and only allow my forces to fire once. Ok that's my beef with an otherwise enjoyable game. Just wish detailed battle was more intuitive.

Drex -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 1:04:17 AM)
War is hell. I have experienced all of the above as you have. I thought it was something I was doing wrong. Maybe it still is.

Gil R. -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 1:07:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DI7 Hello all, These are my impressions after playing a few turns as confederate, and almost up to 1864 as the yankees. I have the beta patch and played a little bit under previous versions. Current situation is that I have captured Richmond after Lee took almost his entire forces to reinforce Longstreets western corp and during the entire year of '63 we had a stalemate on the western Kentucky/western TN front between my reinforced Army of Ohio (taking divisions from the AOP) similiar to the front on the Potomac. So that left the Reb's eastern front lightly defended except for a couple divisions, it took me 6 months however to get McCellam to move his but down into Fredricksburg to Richmond. Meanwhile I had Butler break off a few division from the Army of the Potomic and capture Knoxville and the capital of SC, but my positions is tenous. Lee is now moving east. It's been an interesting game and I am enjoying it but my issues are this: In the newest (unreleased) version of the patch several changes have been made to the strategic AI, including some designed to keep Richmond from being abandoned. Assuming that the new code works as intended, it won't be possible just to waltz into Richmond by drawing off the ANV into western areas. 1.) On the strategic map I see the confederates have a TON of forces, much more than I have. Now I am playing on one of the lower difficulty levels so my money penalty isn't that much. But I can see each city and fort has 3 or 4 brigades, Longstreet has 60,000, Lee could have as much as 200,000 as his forces haven't had a real battle yet, and his divisions in the east still number 30k or 40k. If he pulled out his various garrison troops from down south I would be crushed. Meanwhile I am struggling to maintain maybe 250,000 total on the front lines, that's after pulling garrison troops, using tons of camps, mustering, recruiting when I can afford it, and drafting when I could get away with it (one case of drafting started riots in Connecticut and it spread to Massashucetts). How in the heck are the Confederates getting/affording so many troops? yes I am playing the european diplomatic game of matching the Rebs dollar for dollar. How I hate those meddling Europeans. I thought the Union should at least exceed the rebels in manpower. Is the AI working under the same penalties as we do? Does desease, attrition, angry governers, supply, etc effect them? Which scenario are you playing? And do you have the higher population option turned on? Those numbers don't sound right. But yes, the AI does have to deal with disease, attrition, etc. On the higher difficulty levels it gets some bonuses, but that's pretty standard. 2.) Detailed battle - so frustrating! I've had to hold back from throwing my laptop against the wall on several occasions. Now I am a veteran of CWG, the old talonsoft series, etc. I understand hex warfare. I've read the directions up and down and even went into the data files to exactly understand the ground penalties, etc. It's just not intuitave! Anything in particular that we can help you with, or explain? a.) Now I think what is lacking in this game is the ability to identify "good ground". Good ground is key, it was key in the actual civil war, it was key in the aforementioned games and it made hex warfare enjoyable. Here you certainly get movement penalties, but I don't see noticable defensive or offensive attributes of holding the edge of the woodlines, holding the high ground, holding the river, etc. I know there are some, i've seen the data files, it's just not noticable enough when you take everything else into the calculation. Some of this may be the limitations of the random battlefield. I don't see the long lines of ridges as was common in the Virginia landscape. I don't see dense wide wooded areas followed by the open farmland killing grounds. What I do see is a few hexes of hills, a hex of forest, a farmland hex, etc. I want the ability to use good ground. b.) What is this AI (the confederates in this case) attacking in column? In the aforementioned games (and in real life in the Civil War) attacking in column, I don't care how much morale they have or what general is leading them, would be suicide? The key to gunfire is not how many soldiers you have, it's how many guns you have firing forward. I'm amazed, I see the AI approach in column, I'm thinking "what fools" and fire and then inflict maybe 30 casualties, and then the column fires back and takes out 300 of my men! I flank them and sometimes I get the same results. Then this column gets tired of killing this particular brigade and moves 6 hexes to repeat the same process on one of my other brigades. I believe that this has been changed in the unreleased version of the patch. c.) Pinning, out of command, etc. Heck if I know if that works for the AI. All I know is if I get one in trouble they move to the rear and reform. What do mine do? Stay, fire even if they are out of ammo and losing 10 to each 1 of the enemy, then eventually drop there weapons and flee the field. I love the suicide charge thing that sometimes an out of command brigade will do - right in the middle of a division of rebs usually. d.) flanking penalties - those yellow and red hexes. Ok I understand that to a certain degree. But guys I can't dig in on good ground, I can't fight face to face because of this superhuman column thing, and you penalize me if I try to flank. Let me flank in force please without my forces getting shaken once they get into those yellow hexes. e.) brigade attrition AI vs me in detailed battle - One again I fight Longstreet, OK during our last battle I know I gave them a black eye, and they put an equal number of Yanks in their grave, we both moved around and lost forces during the move. Between our last battle we had the usual round of deseases, etc. Now I fight them again with my average brigades of 2,000 or so, dang if I see Longstreet at least looking and firing as if he had full strenght brigages. I guess the AI could have put them on full supply or something. Yeah, maybe the AI built a bunch of camps and directed the replacement troops his way. f.) OK this bothers me - fire rates. You have one turn, you have one of these AI superhuman columns. I have 3 brigades surrounding him and firing. Maybe this column has a feature that is immune to flanking, doesn't matter. But everytime I fire from these three seperate brigades the AI column returns fire to each. Now, regardless of flanking, regardless of column, etc - wouldn't it make more sense for a unit to fire ONCE during a turn. Maybe make an exception if they have upgraded weapons like spencers or something, but the way these guys fire makes me think they have AK47's. It's still a musket, fires 3 or 4 times a minute, shouldn't have them return fire to 3 or 4 different units all in the same turn and only allow my forces to fire once. Ok that's my beef with an otherwise enjoyable game. Just wish detailed battle was more intuitive. Thanks for your comments (some of which will have to be answered by Eric, Erik, or someone else. It's great to get such detailed feedback, especially regarding first impressions.

Walloc -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 1:23:35 AM)
Hi DI7, I've been through that phase u are in atm. Where i felt the same as u about detailed combat. That might not help you, but i will suggest that u turn on the combat reports on the advance menu inside detailed battles. Its by far IMO the best learning tool for seing what is bad and what is good to do. Also what are good grounds and what arent in terms of this game. For example a thing u would notice is that a non skirmish unit in forrests are actually penalized not the opposite. Unless they have the special ability Woodsman. I can tell u that u are doing some thing like right like trying to flank a unit with several of urs. it gives huges benefits in fire if u have flankers. Aka units flanking AND facing the enemy unit. I would say that im mastering detailed combat pretty well now in large, to what i have learned to do by watching the combat reports. Hope it can help Rasmus

d714 -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 1:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. In the newest (unreleased) version of the patch several changes have been made to the strategic AI, including some designed to keep Richmond from being abandoned. Assuming that the new code works as intended, it won't be possible just to waltz into Richmond by drawing off the ANV into western areas. Thank you. I applaud a developer that will notice feedback and attempt to improve. Actually in the Lee moving west thing I thought it was a clever AI gamble, if Lee did not move west he would have lost all of Tennesse and Longstreets corp. His forts in Fredricksburg were well enforced and he left a couple divisions to hold me off, it just was not quite long enough or large enough. I was sweating the timing out the whole time - Taking Richmond vs. Lee moving back east and finding me on the defensive and potentially cutting off my retreat. I applaud the AI in this case, it was a gamble I would have taken and makes for an interesting game. I am playing the November scenario with the higher population turned off (at least I think, it was the default setting). The issue isn't the number of rebs fighting against me, but the incredible number of garrison troops I see in each fort and city. He could put together a seperate Army of those alone. I must say I did see some of his provinces go into unrest, I assume he was drafting like crazy when my forces were attacking Richmond and South Carolina. I was pretty hard on the hex battle aspect but you know I am still enjoying that as well and I have to say I haven't seen any crazy misbalanced results in any I've fought so far. So are you saying that this column thing will be fixed in the final patch?

d714 -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 1:40:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Walloc For example a thing u would notice is that a non skirmish unit in forrests are actually penalized not the opposite. Unless they have the special ability Woodsman. I can tell u that u are doing some thing like right like trying to flank a unit with several of urs. it gives huges benefits in fire if u have flankers. Aka units flanking AND facing the enemy unit. Thanks for the advice, I will try the combat report. Yes I did read that firing from a forrest is penalized unless in skirmish mode, again that is counterintuitive at least to the civil war games I played previously. Although I realize some of the logic in that - inability to form a line, disorganization, etc. On the whole I would think that firing out of a one hex forest to a clear hex, with your forces hidden behind logs and trees, would generate a tremendous defensive bonus and morale bonus, not necessarily a fire penalty. The penalty would be in movement cost. But that is subject to debate.

XLegion -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 6:52:41 AM)
I have to echo D17's comments on tactical battle. I'm also a veteran of the Talonsoft tactical games and the new HPS designs. Now I'm certainly NOT an expert on this system, but I'm seeing a lot of abuse that I don't like and the AI is doing some might a-historical things. As D17 said this AI attacking in column thing is a bit ridiculous and really hurts the simulation. I have had the same thing happen several times. ie: You practically surround an enemy unit who is in column and he fights his way out of thing by staying in column and firing free at every unit that I use to surround him. Meanwhile my guys surrounding him run out of ammunition lickity split and yet the surrounded Reb unit seems to have a stockpile of ammo on hand and I never even see a turn where he is out of ammo with nary a reb wagon in sight. I'm finding that units in column (especially lead by the AI) seem to have one heck of a lot of firepower.

ericbabe -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 7:17:55 AM)
The AI bonus, of course, depends on the difficulty level of the game.

ericbabe -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 7:24:33 AM)
The exact influences in detailed battle fire attacks can be ascertained via the attack report. The penalty for attacking in column relative to attacking in line is fairly severe, but there may be other factors modifying the damage done in each case. I don't believe that any of our modifiers are non-standard for miniatures type games; many of our combat modifiers are in ranges typical for minuatures-type systems. Playing on a high difficulty level does give the AI a substantial damage bonus -- but this is in the same range of damage bonus that the Talonsoft games gave to their AI.

christof139 -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 2:50:11 PM)
Hmmm, The AI at LT. Col. level deploys into line more often than not, but does launch column attacks, and column attacks were frequently launched in the ACW, not as frequent as lin attacks but quite frequently actually. Just depended on the terrain, orders, the objective, etc. Chris

christof139 -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 2:55:45 PM)
Average rate of sustained fire with muskets and rifled muskets was probably between 2 and 3 rounds per minute. Many times 3 rounds per minute could be reached by some individuals under combat conditions, but due to all the variables it was usually a bit less. Sometimes 4 round per minute would be reached by some individuals, but only for a short period. Also, with only 40 to 60 rounds per man ammunition would be at a premium. Chris

XLegion -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 3:57:46 PM)
OK, what level do you recommend playing at to get realistic fire results in Tactical Combat? Presently I'm trying the "Captain Level". Should I try a lower level? I don't want to try a level that 'gives me an advantage either'. I want to play a level that is balanced and realistic. So my question is: What level do I play at to get realistic casualty values in tactical play?

christof139 -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 4:01:05 PM)
quote: OK, what level do you recommend playing at to get realistic fire results in Tactical Combat? Presently I'm trying the "Captain Level". Should I try a lower level? I don't want to try a level that 'gives me an advantage either'. I want to play a level that is balanced and realistic. So my question is: What level do I play at to get realistic casualty values in tactical play? Hi XLegion, I remember you from Slitherine's Legion forum, at least I think that was you but it could have been someone else. Try Capt. Level and above. I really don't know, but it seems at higher levels the enemy AI does do more things. Chris

Erik Rutins -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 4:40:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XLegion OK, what level do you recommend playing at to get realistic fire results in Tactical Combat? Presently I'm trying the "Captain Level". Should I try a lower level? I don't want to try a level that 'gives me an advantage either'. I want to play a level that is balanced and realistic. So my question is: What level do I play at to get realistic casualty values in tactical play? First, turn on Attack Reports so that you can get a feel for what modifiers are helping or hurting you. I'd recommend playing at Sergeant level to remove AI help.

XLegion -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 7:17:47 PM)
I took Wallac's advise and started to play out the tactical battles with the advanced information on. But it is still mighty frustrating because the modifiers are not really clear. Consulting the manual doesn't help much. For one thing it is very repetative and says the same thing, but does not explain. I have placed a picture of a combat situation I don't quite understand. I have some twelve pound Napoleon Cannon duking it out with a Union infantry regiment and it sure isn't doing too well. What is the "Attacker NO Ranging" modifier mean? Also can you explain the Base Damage? Is it Strength + Attack Roll divided by 18??? There is a star on the screen on the same line as Base Damage but what does this represent? [image]http://www.magma.ca/%7Egcollins/Forge.jpg[/image]

ericbabe -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 7:51:26 PM)
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the manual is repetitive but does not explain; can you give a specific example of something that's not explained? Here's the section on ranging from the manual, page 151: quote: Ranging: Bonus (Fire-Attacks Only) � Brigades engaged in fire-attacks have a chance to gain ranging on a hex every time they fire. If a unit gains ranging, then subsequent fire- or charge-attacks on units in that hex will be made at a 50% bonus. Chance of ranging = Quality x 10% - Smoke% A brigade�s ranging is lost if it moves or changes facing. (Ranging doesn't actually modify charge attacks. I don't know why that's in the manual.) Asterisks ("*") are used to represent multiplication on computers.

Erik Rutins -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 7:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XLegion I took Wallac's advise and started to play out the tactical battles with the advanced information on. But it is still mighty frustrating because the modifiers are not really clear. Consulting the manual doesn't help much. For one thing it is very repetative and says the same thing, but does not explain. Some of this is explained in the manual, but the attack report didn't exist in the original release so the manual wasn't designed to explain it. quote: I have placed a picture of a combat situation I don't quite understand. I have some twelve pound Napoleon Cannon dukingit out with a Union infantry regiment and it sure isn't doing too well. What is the "Attacker NO Ranging" modifier mean? Also can you explain the Base Damage? Is it Strength + Attack Roll divided by 18??? There is a star on the screen on the same line as Base Damage but what does this represent? Sure, ok let me explain what I see here. First problem is you have your artillery in Column formation. That halves their firepower and makes them 50% more vulnerable to enemy return fire. They're basically firing while limbered or barely deployed. The base strength is what everything starts from and that just shows the formula that's used. So, you take the number of Men in the unit, then you multiply it by an averaged roll from 1-100% (in this case 66%) and divide the result by 18. That's what it did to get the starting 66 casualties. The left column is your running total, the right column is each modifier. So, the difficulty level you're on increased the casualties by 35. The firepower at range 2 for the gun the enemy unit was firing (the Springfield) added 25 more casualties on. Their formation is line, which neither adds nor subtracts. Your formation is column, which adds to their firepower. They have no ranging, which means it's the first time they are firing at this unit. The first shot at any unit, you don't have their range yet. Subsequent shots at the same target don't have this penalty, which discourages frequently switching targets. They are not facing you straight on, so they get a penalty for that (not every guy can fire at you). And so on, if you scroll down you should see the rest of the modifiers and the result. However, the #1 thing you should do is deploy your artillery into Line the turn before you open fire. Regards, - Erik

Walloc -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 8:34:51 PM)
ill chime in a bit too. Tho i will be repeating Erik alot. Note this is the return fire of the US line, btw. First base damage: 27(as in 2708 men)44(the attack roll)/18= 66 Attack roll is randon between 1 and 100 which is a large difference. That is what some times creates "odd" results. So the base is 66. Difficulty adds 35. Thats an over 50% addition of the base 66 for the AI difficulty. Over +50% on ALL fire attacks is a pretty nifty advantage. This means u play at a fairly high difficulty. U can lower this AI advantage by playing at lower difficulty levels. Gun Power (springfield distance=2) IMO this is a bit counter intuative. Because this requires u to know/ remember what damage all the different weapons systems do at all ranges, if u fully wana understand this modifier pre hand. In this case: Ur base number is now 101. I just happen to have a sticky brain so i remember that Springfields have 125 damage at range two. 1011.25= 126. If had been at range one springfields have 150 so the result would have been 101*1.5 = 152 If it had been an Ordonance gun at range 2 it had been multiplied by 7.0 and so on. Knowing this. You can ofcourse backtrace the math and know what damage of said weapon system is at said range with a bit of calculation. I can only second Erik in saying. Fire ur guns inline/unlimbered, u would have doubled ur damage and removed a 1/3 of ur own. In all making 96 vs 54 instead of 48 vs 79, for that one factor alone. If u had played without the AI advantage u could have taken another sizeble reducion in ur loses. Closer to a 96 vs 36 attack. Hope it helps Rasmus

XLegion -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/12/2007 10:05:35 PM)
OK, now that explains everything. Which as Eric said the manual does not, since it was never in. BUT, look at the graphic of the artillery. It is shown deployed that is what through me off. Shouldn't the graphic for limbered artillery be quite different, like maybe showing some horses are facing the other way? As for the manual being repetative, I mean this in the sense that sections in the basic, intermediate and advanced game are repeated. It is not an easy manual to read. And how many pages when printed out? That thing is gigantic.

d714 -> RE: My impressions - detailed battle, etc (4/13/2007 8:10:23 PM)
This is all great information. I also just learned by reading in one of the forums that disbanding the depleted brigades will fill up you other brigades in the same container. That is going to make a great difference. I just couldn't figure out how I could be going against confederate brigades of 4,000 with my shot up battle weary ragged 1,500 man brigades. Still having problem with the fire rate thing when a sorrounded enemy brigade fires at each of my brigades in one turn (of course this rule goes both ways and I can use it to my benifit). If I run into a full strength enemy brigade with good morale and with a feature that does not have any flanker penalties I can easily bleed out a whole division trying to take out this one brigade. By the way, in my original post scenario, Lee finally did make it east to try to retake Richmond, with his force of 140,000 vs the 110,000 army of Potomac. The James River detailed battlefied is just loaded with forts! Thank God I was the defender in this case. After a daylong battle Lee finally fled the field under cover of night, not without taking his share of casualties - 22,000 yanks vs. 24,000 rebs. Some of his best generals were lost - Early and NB Forrest fell below the walls of my forts, and Johnston was captured along with 3 brigades. Almost all my divisions were less than 2,000 strong.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.921875