After my first game - many concerns about FOF

After my first game - many concerns about FOF (Full Version)

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

Message

Blackadar1 -> After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 3:48:01 AM)
Please forgive me if this post seems like I’m whining, as that’s not my intention. I’ve enjoyed most of my experience with FOF, but have some real concerns and questions that are right now spoiling an otherwise great game. I don’t have the manual yet, so some of this might be covered in there. Some of this might be due to some of the options I have/haven’t selected on startup. Thanks for your answers. After having quite a bit of difficulty getting FOF to work, I’ve managed to get it operational and played my first game. I lost. Well, let’s just say I can’t win. I’ve won virtually every battle fought; yet I’ve lost the war. But I’m not sure if that’s due entirely to my own lack of skill or problems in the game itself. Generals are turned off, so is extended supply. Governors are on as are different types of rifles. I’m playing on tutorial with a +2 advantage, so that I’ve lost seems entirely unreasonable. I'm not a newbie at wargaming or anything. Here’s my situation. I’m playing as union. The year is 1865. I’ve had very few defeats and a lot of victories. Yet I’m entirely stuck. The Confederacy “get out of jail free” clock is ticking and they’re picking up victory points every turn now. For me, the war is lost. Yet I should have already won... Let’s start in TN. I’ve decimated the Confederacy here. They had about 50,000 troops at one time and are down to under 20,000. They’re so weak that I just created forts, manned them with a couple of divisions and have marched my army East (more on that later). However, getting them to this state has been an arduous task and this brings me to my first three points/problems/questions. 1. Why do I always lose when I quick sim? And I do mean pretty much always. I once took on 28,000 ragged Confederate troops with a solid Union force of 70,000 and lost. Yet if I actually go in to play the battle and let the computer do everything from the opening turn, I win handily. I want to play this game from a strategic level, not a tactical one. In other words, I don’t want to play the battles. But I lose every single time with an instant sim and win every time when I go into the map and wait 20 minutes for the game to play both sides. Why is this? Is this a bug? This is a huge problem for me right now and is a major disappointment as I don't want to play each battle. I'm the President, not a General! 2. If I do go into the battlefield but want the computer to run my forces, why does it constantly suicide charge my Calvary? Calvary is good for flanking maneuvers and for taking down cannons. Yet in every battle, my horses go merrily running across the battlefield to engage infantry divisions well ahead of the rest of my forces. It’s most disconcerting, though my troops are getting used to the taste of Union horseflesh (after picking out the lead shot). It makes a fine stew. 3. Why don’t armies that decimated give up? From a historical sense, an army that’s been gutted repeatedly ultimately surrenders. It happened in the Civil War numerous times, yet these guys keep fighting and dying without a care. Hell, in my saved game right now, they’re trying to lay siege to Knoxville (turf we’ve fought over about 6 or 8 times) with 18,000 men (against my 9,000 in a fort). This was made all the more annoying since I kept losing quick sim battles here…I must have watched the simulation screen for a good 3 hours seeing my army repeatedly kick the crap out of a beaten army that didn’t know enough to give up. Back in 1864, I had my own Sherman’s March (well, with no Sherman since I’m not playing with generals) through GA. With no Confederacy troops in sight, I took most of GA without much of a fight. This brings me to issue/question 4. 4. Why is it such a pain to get in the perfect spot on the map trying to find a fort, especially those against a river? I ultimately couldn’t take GA because of a fort or two I couldn’t seem to guide my troops to. I tried everything from both sides of the river (AL/GA border and GA/SC border) but these “stealth forts” kept me from taking the entire state. TN was a similar pain in the butt. Is there a hot key that I can use to find the exact pixel that my troops have to move into so I can lay siege to these forts? As I mentioned before, I abandoned TN and marched east as the only remaining large force is the Confederacy force in VA, numbering about 250,000. We’ve sparred a couple of times and I’ve won 2 out of 3 against them. I’ve brought to bear over 400,000 mostly seasoned Union troops with improved weaponry, yet these Rebels are invincible. 5. How do armies get out of supply? I took my TN army East right across my home state of North Carolina. I’ve effectively cut off the VA troops from any supplies, reinforcements or hope of rescue. I’ve blockaded them in Norfolk as well. I figured that this would force the Rebels to either attempt a breakout or to slowly starve. Yet neither has happened, which is very discouraging. Is this because I don’t have the advanced/extended supply rule on? Or is this a major oversight? 6. How do you beat the Rebel supertroops? The Rebels must have gone through a Harry Turtledove time machine and gotten some modern weapons, because despite being cut off, vastly outnumbered and facing a well-equipped Union force (Springfields or better for everyone), they cut me to pieces. This is the one battle it doesn’t seem to matter if I instant sim or not as the Rebs are laying massive casualties against my hugely superior force. I’ve managed to isolate two armies and attacked them with 5 of my own – 420,000 vs. 175,000 – and got the living crap beat out of me. I’ve lost over 1,000 Union soldiers from one Rebel attack in one turn. I’ve not seen anything like it up until now, so what gives? Now even this might be ok because I can afford 2-for-1 casualties anyway. But the Rebs get a massive boost in the victory conditions – a swing of 12 points – for a narrow victory. That’s about everything I’ve gotten combined for wiping out three entire Rebel armies out West. 7. What caused the points to swing so much here versus everywhere else? As I mentioned, the Rebs are getting a huge amount of points even when I've played that battle and gotten the casualty figures to be close. Grant didn't win every battle. He recognized he had a huge troop advantage and kept engaging the Army of VA. I was going to do the same thing here, but the game won't let me. 8. How can the Union win if all the Rebs have to do is sit tight, mass their troops around Richmond without regard to the rest of the battlefield? In the real world, if the Union had stormed through GA, taken most it as well as NC and Arkansas, captured all of TN and cut off all supply to VA, the battle is pretty much won. Yet here I am in a game I can’t win with those exact conditions. Is the balance in the game so poor that the Union side is virtually unwinnable? It was a concern of mine when I read all the AARs as the Rebels won every one of them. It almost stopped me from buying the game altogether. Oh, and one more: 9. Why is the AI clairvoyant? Having replayed some of these battles to confirm problems with the instant sim engine, the supertroop issue and so forth, I've noticed that the AI knows exactly what I'm going to do each turn. Remember, the AI has three armies (about 220,000 total troops) in VA and they're guarding two seperate territories. Yet if I engage his stack of two armies with my 5 armies, his 3rd army comes to the rescue. Is this cheating or is this some sort of feature? Were the Rebels blessed with Fortune Tellers? Because I've never gotten wind of a Rebel attack, yet these guys know what I'm going to do before my turn ends. I don’t like to lose anyway. But losing like this – with a huge setup advantage and after many hours of gamplay - is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. If I really thought this is the way the game worked, I’d start charge-back procedures on my credit card because this would be a rip-off. But I’ve read enough on this board to think that most or all of this is due to my lack of knowledge or perhaps the options I started the game with. So your help is appreciated as I want to like this game. But as it is, I'm feeling a bit discouraged and regretting my buying decision right now. What happened here?

Walloc -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 5:47:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackadar1 After having quite a bit of difficulty getting FOF to work, I’ve managed to get it operational and played my first game. I lost. Well, let’s just say I can’t win. I’ve won virtually every battle fought; yet I’ve lost the war. But I’m not sure if that’s due entirely to my own lack of skill or problems in the game itself. Here’s my situation. I’m playing as union. The year is 1865. I’ve had very few defeats and a lot of victories. Yet I’m entirely stuck. The Confederacy “get out of jail free” clock is ticking and they’re picking up victory points every turn now. For me, the war is lost. Yet I should have already won... Let’s start in TN. I’ve decimated the Confederacy here. They had about 50,000 troops at one time and are down to under 20,000. They’re so weak that I just created forts, manned them with a couple of divisions and have marched my army East (more on that later). However, getting them to this state has been an arduous task and this brings me to my first three points/problems/questions. 1. Why do I always lose when I quick sim? And I do mean pretty much always. I once took on 28,000 ragged Confederate troops with a solid Union force of 70,000 and lost. Yet if I actually go in to play the battle and let the computer do everything from the opening turn, I win handily. I want to play this game from a strategic level, not a tactical one. In other words, I don’t want to play the battles. But I lose every single time with an instant sim and win every time when I go into the map and wait 20 minutes for the game to play both sides. Why is this? Is this a bug? This is a huge problem for me right now and is a major disappointment as I don't want to play each battle. I'm the President, not a General! Hi Rowan Adkinson, ops i mean Blackadder. [;)] Could u give the VP as of now? I ask cuz in one sentence u say u won every battle and yet lose every QC(quick combat). I wondered what ur / CSA National will are. As to quick combat i when i play the AI most to exclusive play HW(hex wars=detailed battles) but i do got some experience from pbem's that only uses QC. I dunno what scenario u are playing, but it seems from reading several peoples posts new to the game that they tend to be slow in the beginning of the war as US. Building troops and other stuff. Ur problems in TN leads me to think same is true for u but plz correct me, if im wrong. QC defense bonus can be huge. Especially if there is forts in the province maybe a city and some terrain bonus. I've seen odds 1 to 3 win those combat easily. As far as i gather it was introduced to make CSA stronger. This primarily affects QC. The bonus isnt there in the same way in HW. To boot which is a problem when trying to take Richmond for example. There is a max of 36 unit/bdes allowed in QC so US cant use their numberical advantage. ill come back to that later and ways to overcome that. That means as much as possible avoid fights in provinces with forts. Try to bypass or lure enemy out of those fort provinces and attack if they move to less defensive provinces. As i read u. You alrdy has a tactic to guard the conquered provinces with self build forts. Garrison it. Have an army rdy if enemy decides to move in there. Tables defense bonus wise is then turned up side down since AI attacking. Eventually u will find that in some cases u do have to attack fort provinces. If they are surrounded all the better. Again try take the non fort provinces first see if u cant lure the enemy army out of the fort provinces. If u have to attack fort provinces and in case of Richmond. Its importand to remember there is a 36 unit/bde limit, any units above that isnt used so you only attack with 36 unit. Split ur armies up in 36 unit/bde armies so when first has lost, u in next turn can attack with next and so on. This is the only way to attrition an enemy 36+ unit/bde army defending in fort provinces. When an army loses it loses dispostion that lowers the units ql so have the losing armies rest and regain disposition. Hospitals can help regain disposition faster up too 2 units per hospital so u might need lots where heavy fighting with several armies occure. Dispostion means looots and i think most players miss that fact. Ql 4 troops might easily after a few lost battles have so low disposition that they in fact only are QL 2 while winning armies disposition and ql go up. Dont attack until most of ur army is normal or higher. Back to TN. Im still assuming u didnt attack right of the bat. As US u have too, in nov scn use the winter to muster and make the needed containers. Attack right away come first feb turn if u cant move before. If u wait until after april u give the AI twice the chance of mustering. U cant afford that. U need to start attrition right away and u should be able to take TN in 62. Press hard and right away. U start out better than CSA u can muster more u can take more casulties. Waiting only helps CSA. In july scn id say attack alrdy before winter again make attrition and gain expereince u wont gain much territory tho. Again use winter to build armies so u rdy to strike in at latest feb 62. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1468381 Read that if u uncertain about mustering i think there are a one or 2 more recent threads concerning this. If u insist on QC and i understand why u do it. Only way to win as US is attrition attrition attrition. Make camp camp camp camp and build troops troops and troops. Muster initially to win. Weapons, generals wont overcome the teh fort defence bonus just how it is. Personally i think forts are to tough and i see some gamey ways to use them, but its not my call. quote: 2. If I do go into the battlefield but want the computer to run my forces, why does it constantly suicide charge my Calvary? Calvary is good for flanking maneuvers and for taking down cannons. Yet in every battle, my horses go merrily running across the battlefield to engage infantry divisions well ahead of the rest of my forces. It’s most disconcerting, though my troops are getting used to the taste of Union horseflesh (after picking out the lead shot). It makes a fine stew. I agree at times AI doenst use horses to the best. "Good news" is when u play HW AI makes same mistakes with their own horsies ;-) quote: 3. Why don’t armies that decimated give up? From a historical sense, an army that’s been gutted repeatedly ultimately surrenders. It happened in the Civil War numerous times, yet these guys keep fighting and dying without a care. Hell, in my saved game right now, they’re trying to lay siege to Knoxville (turf we’ve fought over about 6 or 8 times) with 18,000 men (against my 9,000 in a fort). This was made all the more annoying since I kept losing quick sim battles here…I must have watched the simulation screen for a good 3 hours seeing my army repeatedly kick the crap out of a beaten army that didn’t know enough to give up. When an army/container retreats there is a chance units will surrender. It was original 15% per unit not sure if that is still true, Eric would have to answer. I suspect its been tweeked. If u had trown just a divsion into a province u own with a fort they can easily beat those 18k CSA. I suggest if u use an fort conquered provinces to have some troops rdy to kick out any CSA entering ur fort provinces. Should be fairly easy. Just have them behind the front rdy to react into any province CSA decises to attack quote: 4. Why is it such a pain to get in the perfect spot on the map trying to find a fort, especially those against a river? I ultimately couldn’t take GA because of a fort or two I couldn’t seem to guide my troops to. I tried everything from both sides of the river (AL/GA border and GA/SC border) but these “stealth forts” kept me from taking the entire state. TN was a similar pain in the butt. Is there a hot key that I can use to find the exact pixel that my troops have to move into so I can lay siege to these forts? Did u enter the river provinces the forts was in? it can be tricky some times to find a free spot in cluttered river provinces. Try either end of the province tho usually works for me. quote: As I mentioned before, I abandoned TN and marched east as the only remaining large force is the Confederacy force in VA, numbering about 250,000. We’ve sparred a couple of times and I’ve won 2 out of 3 against them. I’ve brought to bear over 400,000 mostly seasoned Union troops with improved weaponry, yet these Rebels are invincible. QC? again see above about 36 unit limit. Dont attack with more than that in QC. Rather make succesive attacks with alternating 36 unit armies turn after turn. quote: 5. How do armies get out of supply? I took my TN army East right across my home state of North Carolina. I’ve effectively cut off the VA troops from any supplies, reinforcements or hope of rescue. I’ve blockaded them in Norfolk as well. I figured that this would force the Rebels to either attempt a breakout or to slowly starve. Yet neither has happened, which is very discouraging. Is this because I don’t have the advanced/extended supply rule on? Or is this a major oversight? Well there arent supply routes per say in game. Supply is calculated per the province, whether there is a RR and so. Only way to make them effective go out of supply is conquere so much territory / cities their national income is to low for them to give any real supply prioverty. But then if army doesnt move it only uses supply in battles again succsive attacks over many turns is the approche. quote: 6. How do you beat the Rebel supertroops? The Rebels must have gone through a Harry Turtledove time machine and gotten some modern weapons, because despite being cut off, vastly outnumbered and facing a well-equipped Union force (Springfields or better for everyone), they cut me to pieces. This is the one battle it doesn’t seem to matter if I instant sim or not as the Rebs are laying massive casualties against my hugely superior force. I’ve managed to isolate two armies and attacked them with 5 of my own – 420,000 vs. 175,000 – and got the living crap beat out of me. I’ve lost over 1,000 Union soldiers from one Rebel attack in one turn. I’ve not seen anything like it up until now, so what gives? Again u prolly run into the 36 unit limit so the 3-1 odds isnt there in the combat. Revert to succesive attacks with max 36 unit armies. Again i assume its QC so look at those advice. Again ill say in my own experience, Fort bonus/defense bonus out weights weapons by far. I've had spencer equiped units attack a fort province and haivng odds 2 to 1 not reaching the 36 unit limit. Had 3 to 1 in art and still lost in 80% of the cases. Try lure them out of fort provinces. If its not feasible only way is attrition. quote: Now even this might be ok because I can afford 2-for-1 casualties anyway. But the Rebs get a massive boost in the victory conditions – a swing of 12 points – for a narrow victory. That’s about everything I’ve gotten combined for wiping out three entire Rebel armies out West. Yes they do why i asked about the NW will. I wonder since u said u won most of the combats. Only good thing is that 12 neg NW wont make u lose in it self tho it is negative VP. Again the faster u get of the bat and attack the sooner the less CSA armies u will see over time. What ever u do, dont give them time. quote: 7. What caused the points to swing so much here versus everywhere else? As I mentioned, the Rebs are getting a huge amount of points even when I've played that battle and gotten the casualty figures to be close. Grant didn't win every battle. He recognized he had a huge troop advantage and kept engaging the Army of VA. I was going to do the same thing here, but the game won't let me. well rules are that if u lose a decisive battles. 40k+ troops on both sides and 10k+ casulties u lose NW. Using the attrition tactic not much u can do about it. Other than either attack with max 36 unit army, cuz of the limit or attack with max 39,5k men. That way it cant be a decisive battle and u dont lose NW. Yes gamey but hey some times u gota do what u gota do. quote: 8. How can the Union win if all the Rebs have to do is sit tight, mass their troops around Richmond without regard to the rest of the battlefield? In the real world, if the Union had stormed through GA, taken most it as well as NC and Arkansas, captured all of TN and cut off all supply to VA, the battle is pretty much won. Yet here I am in a game I can’t win with those exact conditions. Is the balance in the game so poor that the Union side is virtually unwinnable? It was a concern of mine when I read all the AARs as the Rebels won every one of them. It almost stopped me from buying the game altogether. U can trick is not to engage the Richmond army. All u do is lose battle and lose NW. Win the win in the West / south. There are enough VP there to win the game if u dont lose alot of points on NW in pointless attacks on ANV. Doesnt that go against my advice of attrition and attrition. Sorta yes. But make the attrition out west, why i suggest attacking out there in TN/AR asap. KY is a but tricky i usually wait for it to pick sides since most of the time it goes US. Entering troops might make it CSA. quote: 9. Why is the AI clairvoyant? Having replayed some of these battles to confirm problems with the instant sim engine, the supertroop issue and so forth, I've noticed that the AI knows exactly what I'm going to do each turn. Remember, the AI has three armies (about 220,000 total troops) in VA and they're guarding two seperate territories. Yet if I engage his stack of two armies with my 5 armies, his 3rd army comes to the rescue. Is this cheating or is this some sort of feature? Were the Rebels blessed with Fortune Tellers? Because I've never gotten wind of a Rebel attack, yet these guys know what I'm going to do before my turn ends. No the, rule is if an army/container is adjecting to an container that is being attacking it migth get reinforced by the adjecting container. max 36 unit limit still apply. Way to avoid reinforcements is to make suck off attacks on the reinforcing container. If its attacked it might stay in place and fight that battle. Any how not counting NW lost due to lost decisive battles u would be better of making more attacks with several stacks over several provinces that 1 big battle cuz of max 36 unit limit. More battles = more attrition. quote: I don’t like to lose anyway. But losing like this – with a huge setup advantage and after many hours of gamplay - is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. If I really thought this is the way the game worked, I’d start charge-back procedures on my credit card because this would be a rip-off. But I’ve read enough on this board to think that most or all of this is due to my lack of knowledge or perhaps the options I started the game with. So your help is appreciated as I want to like this game. But as it is, I'm feeling a bit discouraged and regretting my buying decision right now. What happened here? Well Blackadder playing QC u have to know the play the system more than the game some times IMO. Naturally after 1 game u dont know all the quirks. Playing FoF only QC is different than play HW for sure. As said i understand why u do it, but one has to adapt u playing style to it and know stuff like 36 unit limit. With the possibilty of making u puke more. I can blind folded, Gil pestering me with PMs, beat the crap out of the CSA AI winning in late 62 or early 63 playing as US and HWs. QC takes a bit longer but its certainly doable in 63/64. I can assure u rebel troops arent super humans, but if playing QC i'd try some of the tips i've given and give it some more time to learn the system. There are alot of hidden factors to combat ql, like disposition, Quality of containers all that can be read about in the manual. Disclaimer, this is purely gaming tactics as i see them to optimize against the system of QC as i see it currently. Not questioning the historic's. Kind regards, Rasmus

Walloc -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 6:17:21 AM)
Note: editing lota spelling mistakes and such in above post. 2: note the 36 unit limit is in QC, not HW. Which make playing only QC in large battles different than what u could get in HW. No such limit there so u can utilize the full numerical superiorty in HW. Possibly a thing to consider if playing a battle with above 36 units, is to play those battles as HW, while playing QC in others. Kind regards, Rasmus

Blackadar1 -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 6:33:40 AM)
Rasmus, Thanks for responding and some of that is good advice. However, no offense intended, but because English isn't your first language (so I'm assuming) I can't understand half of what you're saying. Let me try to respond to what I think you're saying, but if someone can translate I'd appreciate it. I think you entirely missed the point on #1. A computer-controlled full sim wins every time and a quick or instant sim loses every time on the same battle. That has nothing to do with the 36 troop limit in quick sim. I didn't have 36 divisions. So why is there a huge disparity between the various combat resolution options? So #2 is just a flaw in the engine. OK, I can live with that. I just won't build as much calvary. In #3, what constitutes a "decimated" army? Is there a setting for this? Because as badly as I beat the Volunteers of TN, they should have quit long ago. As for kicking them out of my province, it's easier to let them beat their heads against my garrison. They're losing 1,500 men per round and my fort isn't losing much at all. #4 - I tried every which way to enter the river province but I'm obviously not finding it. Is there a hot key or a map that will show me what sliver or pixel of the map I have to point my troops to get in the right spot? After a while (once someone finds all the little map secrets) I can see this not being as large of a problem, but it's freakin damn annoying to me right now. I have to move, complete the turn...oh, that's not the right place, reload, move again and so forth. Locations shouldn't be hard to get to on a risk-style map. On #5, No Civil War army of any appreciable size can live purely off the land for any substantial amount of time. If encircling and blockading an army does nothing, then I'm sad to say the game is fatally flawed. After all, that's how the American Revolutionary War was won - Corwallis was cut off and isolated at Yorktown. But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not (language barrier). I can't imagine that something that flawed would exist in the game...so perhaps someone can translate this one for me. As far as #6 goes, you misunderstood what I was saying. Even in full sim mode, I'm losing with 2.5 to 1 odds so again the 36 unit limit doesn't come into play (I think). My question is what allows the Confederate army to end up that strong? Perhaps there's a technological edge that I didn't exploit. Whatever it is, the TN army didn't have it. Also, repeated attacks aren't possible when the Rebs are getting 12 points towards victory. With the "Rebs Win" button (getting 1 point every turn towards winning), 12 points is huge in 1865 so repeated (failed) attacks aren't possible under these conditions. Two failed attacks and I lose the game. #7 - Ug. So essentially I should cut my army into 39,000 man chunks? But what happens when the other side is bringing 175,000 regardless? Is it still a major battle? Even if not, it doesn't matter because 39,000 men isn't going to do much against 175,000. On #8 - Since I don't have the manual yet, I don't know what the victory points are. Still, I'd say it's a major problem if the path to Union victory is not to engage in Virginia. After all, there were far more battles in Virginia than in any other state in the Civil War. #9 - I'm not following you here. Again, just because I break up my troops doesn't mean Johnny Reb does the same. How do you control the size of the opposing force? What's HW? QC? Again, thanks for responding. I realize you know far more about the game than I do at this point. I just don't understand some of your answers and I'm not sure you understood some of my issues/questions.

Walloc -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 6:36:43 AM)
Hehe Blackadder i tried going through and edited here and there i can after i read it my self usualy see the abundace of flaws sorry :-).

Gil R. -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 7:12:28 AM)
Blackadar1, My overall impression is that you’re experiencing what some – though certainly not all – first-time players have, and that as you learn the game you’ll gain expertise at the different ways of winning. I’ve answered most of your specific points below (following up on what Walloc wrote), but feel I should point out that the key to winning as the North is not just winning battles, but also destroying the South’s economy by land and sea, and I get the impression that you haven’t been doing this sufficiently. If you want to post some screenshots showing territory you’ve captured, the makeup of your armies (e.g., what guns, special attributes, etc. you’ve purchased for them), and anything else that would be useful I (and no doubt others) would be glad to give you some tips. Here are my points. #1 Walloc wrote a lot of what I would have, but I should emphasize that the defender gets bonuses, especially if he has forts in that province, so this might explain part of what has been happening to you in QC. Also, you might be committing the rookie error of relying on mustered troops instead of spending money to produce units. When you do this, your army is large but of poor quality – you really need to mix in mustered troops with high-quality purchased troops. Also, spend money on Zouaves, which increase a unit’s chance of lasting longer into the battle without routing. And Walloc’s also right about the importance of hospitals for restoring units’ disposition. #3 I think Walloc misread you, and you’re not wondering why decimated armies don’t surrender, so much as why they don’t stop trying to commit suicide. We are considering for a future patch a rule that would give armies a chance to avoid battle if they’re clearly overmatched – this would solve the problem that I think you’re referring to. #4 Mousing over a fort tells you what province it’s in. Then, when you highlight a force and try to move it there you will get the white pop-up telling you which province you’re about to send them to. With a little practice this will become second-nature. #5 I’d recommend playing with the advanced supply rules, since they make for a more realistic game. (Just because we made something optional doesn’t mean that we think the game is equally good with that option on or off.) #6 It’s hard to tell what’s causing what you’ve experienced without knowing more details. One thing that comes to mind is that the CSA has superior command ratings for its armies/corps/divisions, and that can make a difference over time. As you’ve no doubt seen, after battles there is a chance for these ratings to improve, but one thing you can do to put things on an even footing is spend some money on academies, which each year improve the quality of the officers in your armies/corps/divisions. That will certainly help, even if it’s not THE answer. #8 Lots and lots of people have won as the USA, so there’s no problem with the game that makes the CSA invulnerable. It just takes time to learn the strategies that work. Although I haven’t seen a screenshot showing the territory you’ve captured, it seems to me that you could have won by taking more cities and capitals. Did you try to take the Mississippi River provinces down to New Orleans, or go after relatively defenseless cities like Shreveport and Jackson? Did you use naval invasions to take key coastal cities like Savannah and Charleston, thus cutting off a good chunk of the South’s resources? #9 Exactly what Walloc wrote – this isn’t an AI cheat, it’s simply a matter of an army being called in to reinforce during a battle. Think of First Bull Run and all those men coming by train in the nick of time.

Walloc -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 7:14:13 AM)
Hi blackadder, Sorry u started using the word quick sim. I assumed u meant what is normally called quick battle/combat. If that wasnt what u meant by that much of the advice naturally isnt usable in ur case. quote: What's HW? QC? HW = hex war's or detailed combat. The detailed combat where u in miniature style playout the battle or u possibly can let the AI control ur forces. QC = Quick combat. Letting the AI play out the battles at a board with men representing units firing at each other. 2 of the 3 different kinda battles modes/ options. quote: I think you entirely missed the point on #1. A computer-controlled full sim wins every time and a quick or instant sim loses every time on the same battle. That has nothing to do with the 36 troop limit in quick sim. I didn't have 36 divisions. So why is there a huge disparity between the various combat resolution options? 36 units = bde, not divsions. Lets say u play a battle in HW AI vs AI. 400k troops vs 200k troops. All those units would be represented in the simulated HW. Not so in QC. 400k is some thing like 100 units if not more. Since max is 36 bde in QC. It will be 36 vs 36 units aka equal. Not a 2-1 advantage. What is prolly why u see so different results. quote: So #2 is just a flaw in the engine. OK, I can live with that. I just won't build as much calvary. Well they help to chase retreating armies, giving pursuit casulties so i'd still use them. quote: In #3, what constitutes a "decimated" army? Is there a setting for this? Because as badly as I beat the Volunteers of TN, they should have quit long ago. As for kicking them out of my province, it's easier to let them beat their heads against my garrison. They're losing 1,500 men per round and my fort isn't losing much at all. No, there isnt a setting for that. Yes if they attack u. Its easier to give casulties that way, but if u wont have a chasing army. U wont give pursuit losses plus u need to advance!!! [:D] Decimated armies as u describe isnt in the game. Only way to totally eliminate is keep attacking or encircling. Whne u say the lose 1500 men i think that means they sieging your fort. Yes seiges can be bloody. The only thing that would make them say stop is if the individual units gets below 1/3 of strength. Then they wont participate in sieges. Else there per say isnt any thing stopping them other than u kicked them out- quote: #4 - I tried every which way to enter the river province but I'm obviously not finding it. Is there a hot key or a map that will show me what sliver or pixel of the map I have to point my troops to get in the right spot? After a while (once someone finds all the little map secrets) I can see this not being as large of a problem, but it's freakin damn annoying to me right now. I have to move, complete the turn...oh, that's not the right place, reload, move again and so forth. Locations shouldn't be hard to get to on a risk-style map. No, as far as i know there is not hot key. I found in my first game it a bit difficult too, but soon got the hang of where to press. quote: On #5, No Civil War army of any appreciable size can live purely off the land for any substantial amount of time. If encircling and blockading an army does nothing, then I'm sad to say the game is fatally flawed. After all, that's how the American Revolutionary War was won - Corwallis was cut off and isolated at Yorktown. But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not (language barrier). I can't imagine that something that flawed would exist in the game...so perhaps someone can translate this one for me. I was on purpose trying not to discuss design. The effect of an totally encircle army doesnt in game come as much in lost supply as in the fact if such an army losses and cant retreat to a province that is adjecting to a province that is owned by AI, the army is eliminated. U set containers supply settings on advanced supply settings and they get supply after that. In it self there isnt traced a supply route some where. Province is i assume, assumed to be so big that i can supply what ever troops. Provinces isnt small and if a city in it would have some stores. Is this some what simplified, yes. quote: As far as #6 goes, you misunderstood what I was saying. Even in full sim mode, I'm losing with 2.5 to 1 odds so again the 36 unit limit doesn't come into play (I think). My question is what allows the Confederate army to end up that strong? Perhaps there's a technological edge that I didn't exploit. Whatever it is, the TN army didn't have it. Also, repeated attacks aren't possible when the Rebs are getting 12 points towards victory. With the "Rebs Win" button (getting 1 point every turn towards winning), 12 points is huge in 1865 so repeated (failed) attacks aren't possible under these conditions. Two failed attacks and I lose the game. Ok i thought u had fought that battle in QC not simulated HW. In HW there is a standart +2 ql bonus for defense. That means a good CSA army can have some ql 6-7 units counting that bonus. What was the quality of ur troops? I'd say i never had the AI simulate my HWs for me so cant comment much on that but i'd suspect that either u had very low QL troops if it cant win in HW at 2.5-1. What was ur disposition and what was ur average ql? Any idea of enemy dispostion? With out knowing all these factors its very hard to give an accurate answer. If u fighting 2.5-1 odds, but with very inferior ql troops, remember here that Low disposition might lower ur ql. It could be possible to lose 2.5-1. yes in 65 -12 VP is alot why its adviceble to win sooner [;)] quote: #7 - Ug. So essentially I should cut my army into 39,000 man chunks? But what happens when the other side is bringing 175,000 regardless? Is it still a major battle? Even if not, it doesn't matter because 39,000 men isn't going to do much against 175,000. No, if they have a full army, counter with full army. The 39k+ advice was only for QC where the result as in winning losing doesnt matter as much as just attrition. quote: On #8 - Since I don't have the manual yet, I don't know what the victory points are. Still, I'd say it's a major problem if the path to Union victory is not to engage in Virginia. After all, there were far more battles in Virginia than in any other state in the Civil War. If u look at the menu Nation lower, there is a counting of all VPs. As not to engage ANV, again im suggesting gaming ways, not historic. If i was playing a normal game with HWs i'd for sure attack in VA. Im just saying there can if u wana play gamingly be reason to avoid ANV in QC/instant. quote: Again, thanks for responding. I realize you know far more about the game than I do at this point. I just don't understand some of your answers and I'm not sure you understood some of my issues/questions. No problem my fault. usually spend a deal of time editing my own posts are posting them. Its not advisible to read until an hour after posting, lol. Kind regards, Rasmus

Gil R. -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 7:35:33 AM)
Okay, time for some more responses. quote: ORIGINAL: Blackadar1 Rasmus, Thanks for responding and some of that is good advice. However, no offense intended, but because English isn't your first language (so I'm assuming) I can't understand half of what you're saying. Let me try to respond to what I think you're saying, but if someone can translate I'd appreciate it. I think you entirely missed the point on #1. A computer-controlled full sim wins every time and a quick or instant sim loses every time on the same battle. That has nothing to do with the 36 troop limit in quick sim. I didn't have 36 divisions. So why is there a huge disparity between the various combat resolution options? This constant disparity you're seeing between HW and QC results is not something I've seen, and might simply be a function of your playing on the tutorial level, or something like that. (I'm not the programmer -- I'm just throwing out one idea that strikes me.) I don't believe that your experience with this is representative of the game. So #2 is just a flaw in the engine. OK, I can live with that. I just won't build as much calvary. Bad move -- cavalry is very useful, regardless of what the AI might do in detailed battles. You really want to have some cavalry units in the mix. In #3, what constitutes a "decimated" army? Is there a setting for this? Because as badly as I beat the Volunteers of TN, they should have quit long ago. As for kicking them out of my province, it's easier to let them beat their heads against my garrison. They're losing 1,500 men per round and my fort isn't losing much at all. See Walloc's response. #4 - I tried every which way to enter the river province but I'm obviously not finding it. Is there a hot key or a map that will show me what sliver or pixel of the map I have to point my troops to get in the right spot? After a while (once someone finds all the little map secrets) I can see this not being as large of a problem, but it's freakin damn annoying to me right now. I have to move, complete the turn...oh, that's not the right place, reload, move again and so forth. Locations shouldn't be hard to get to on a risk-style map. Answered above. On #5, No Civil War army of any appreciable size can live purely off the land for any substantial amount of time. If encircling and blockading an army does nothing, then I'm sad to say the game is fatally flawed. After all, that's how the American Revolutionary War was won - Corwallis was cut off and isolated at Yorktown. But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not (language barrier). I can't imagine that something that flawed would exist in the game...so perhaps someone can translate this one for me. But you're playing with the supply rules turned off! That's an ahistorical setting, as you yourself obviously recognize. (We included that setting for people who just want to fight and not worry about economic factors. As I wrote above, just because something's an option doesn't mean that it's the best way to play.) As far as #6 goes, you misunderstood what I was saying. Even in full sim mode, I'm losing with 2.5 to 1 odds so again the 36 unit limit doesn't come into play (I think). My question is what allows the Confederate army to end up that strong? Perhaps there's a technological edge that I didn't exploit. Whatever it is, the TN army didn't have it. Also, repeated attacks aren't possible when the Rebs are getting 12 points towards victory. With the "Rebs Win" button (getting 1 point every turn towards winning), 12 points is huge in 1865 so repeated (failed) attacks aren't possible under these conditions. Two failed attacks and I lose the game. Walloc's response seems a good one. Next time you play, you can choose the option that turns off the rule that gives the South points starting in 1865. #7 - Ug. So essentially I should cut my army into 39,000 man chunks? But what happens when the other side is bringing 175,000 regardless? Is it still a major battle? Even if not, it doesn't matter because 39,000 men isn't going to do much against 175,000. On #8 - Since I don't have the manual yet, I don't know what the victory points are. Still, I'd say it's a major problem if the path to Union victory is not to engage in Virginia. After all, there were far more battles in Virginia than in any other state in the Civil War. Please read the .pdf version of the manual, at least the key parts. So many of your complaints would have been rendered moot if you had done this. And Virginia's important for Union victory, though it's not the only way to secure it. #9 - I'm not following you here. Again, just because I break up my troops doesn't mean Johnny Reb does the same. How do you control the size of the opposing force? What's HW? QC? Again, thanks for responding. I realize you know far more about the game than I do at this point. I just don't understand some of your answers and I'm not sure you understood some of my issues/questions.

Gil R. -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 7:40:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackadar1 After having quite a bit of difficulty getting FOF to work, I’ve managed to get it operational and played my first game. I lost. Well, let’s just say I can’t win. I’ve won virtually every battle fought; yet I’ve lost the war. But I’m not sure if that’s due entirely to my own lack of skill or problems in the game itself. I just remembered -- you were the one who was having trouble loading the game. What turned out to be the problem? Were some of your drivers out of date, or was it Flash that needed updating, or something else? Just curious.

Gil R. -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 7:46:59 AM)
One other tip: if many of your army/corps/division containers have poor ratings there's no harm in creating new containers in the hope that you'll get a better roll of the dice and thus better ratings. If you stick with the containers you're giving at the beginning of the game it will take a very long time before their imaginary officers improve, and it will be impossible to catch up to the South in terms of officer quality.

Blackadar1 -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 2:51:37 PM)
Thanks again for all of the responses. Please remember that I don't have the manual yet, so I'm really in the dark here on some things that I'm sure are explained adequately there. Gil understood #1...again, it had nothing to do with the 36 slot limit. It's weird that it's not come up before - perhaps it is related to the tutorial difficulty level. Because I instant/quick simmed certain battles numerous times and then went into the "hex war" and the results were radically different. After about 4 or 5 battles like this, I got concerned. I know I was able to demonstrate a major difference in the results and again, I'm not hitting the 36 slot limit. So it's something else. If I run across it again (or if I can find the saved game), I'll post it and let someone else look at it. #2 - means I build fewer calvary, not none. I'm not that stupid. :) #3 - means just means keep kicking them while they're down. It's an annoyance, but not an unlivable one. Just a bit unrealistic. #4 - Thanks Gil, I'll see if I can find that mouseover/province thing. #5 - I know I'm playing with the supply rules turned off. If they were on, would this change the status of the Army of VA? This is a biggie and I haven't really seen a straight answer yet. If an army is cut off from all supply in the manner I described, are there (and what are they) negative effects on that army group? #6 - I'll keep the "Rebs Auto Win" button off next time for sure. It still doesn't explain the rebs huge advantage in VA. I don't have time to do a screenie this morning, but my troops are all experienced with ratings from 4 to 6.5 or so and just getting slaughtered. And all my troops have been built - I didn't use conscripts much at all except to garrison forts. I'm figuring it must have something to do with technology...something that I didn't update or didn't utilize that the Rebs are doing. Coming back to the main intent of my question, is there a key research technology that is almost a must-have on the battlefields of 1865? I probably don't know how to properly take advantage of my academies and other city improvements I've built. I figure I'll find out how when I get the manual. #7 - Ok, only 39,000 in quick/instant combat. Hex Combat = full troops. #8 - You're absolutely right that the manual will help. I'm just waiting on my hard copy - I bought it so I'd have a printed manual. I can't get through more than a couple of pages reading on the PC before I start to fall asleep, it doesn't matter what it is. And to answer a couple of other questions. I got the game working when Eric sent me a couple of new files to try (a new executable). It's something to do with Flash. I appreciate Eric going to such lengths to help me get this working. I was really excited to see the actual game menu. :) As for containers, I'm playing with Generals turned off. Are there container ratings in a non-general game? If so, I really missed the boat here because I haven't seen any ratings on 'em. Hey, I said in my first post that a lot of this was probably due to my lack of understanding on how the game works because the issues I brought up here weren't being discussed on the boards. So I figure it's something I'm doing or not doing. So thanks again for the responses. I'm most concerned with #1 (the disparity between simming and hex combat), #5 (supply, which I readily admit was turned off), #6 (supertroops) and #7 (points). Some of those concerns have been taken care of, some are still worrying me.

dude -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 7:35:19 PM)
Just my two cents on Detailed Combat Vs Quick Combat... I have plenty of times lost a Quick Combat I felt I should have easily won (large force with decent moral vs much smaller force but on the defensive.) Since I usually save the game at the end of the turn I have gone back and replayed these as detailed combat. I have also done the opposite and saved a detailed combat near the end of the battle and then come back and replayed it as a Quick combat... In all cases... I lost each QC but won each DC... The difference in outcome I attribute to two things -- bonuses for the defender -- one for forts and one for terrain... the defending AI get's very strong bonus that I can largely negate playing the battle myself in DC. If there are forts then in DC I will do my best to ignore them and stay out of range... the AI will almost always come to me. Secondly the defender gets a terrain bonus sometimes... again I can usually negate this since I'll use my cavalry to spot the enemy force and find a good terrain to set up in and lure him to me. And in both cases I have more troops so I can pull guys out of line and replace them with fresh troops. None of this is possilbe in QC unfortunatly... there's probably no easy way to model this effect in QC, it's ment to be somewhat abstract. It would be nice though if QC added a bonus for larger force at least (I don't think it does but I've never looked to be honest.) So my rule of thumb now (even when I would rather just use QC and speed things up...) is to fight a detailed combat vs a defender with forts or some type of terrain bonus and if I outnumber him. Now on the other hand I find I can usually win QC's if I'm on the defensive. these all assume it's after the first year or so and my troop quality has improved greatly and I've been arming them... all bets are off early war and my troops are still untrained and poorly armed then it's almost always a sure thing I will lose QC and most detailed combats... (though I have pulled out some great wins in DC when I thought I would lose... that's when using terrain to your advantage is critical.) Dude

Walloc -> RE: After my first game - many concerns about FOF (6/11/2007 8:32:08 PM)
#7 - Ok, only 39,000 in quick/instant combat. Hex Combat = full troops. Yes and no. Since the rules are if both armies have more than 40.000+ men and losses are 10.000+ it will be a decisive battle. where u can gain / lose national will. Again talking pure gamingly optimizing. Lets say in QC or any other combat u attack an enemy stack of 50.000 in a fort, city and maybe +1 terrain bonus province. If u attack that with 50.000 ur self it will be a decisive battle so subject to lose/ gain in National Will(NW). If its a battle u know you prolly are going to lose. i'd attack with 39.000 instead. I still lose but inflict prolly same amout of casulties and wont risk losing National will. Very gamey and using the systems against the system, yes. Now if u could attack the 50k enemy army with a vastely superior force go ahead. U will win and gain NW and chance of losing is very slim. Why do i in particular mention QC. Well my experience in QC, is that defender bonus can become very high. If defender have a fort, city and some terrain u could attack with 100.000 and still lose pretty consistantly. Question is then in that particular case. Do i attack 2-1 while still having a very good chance of losing or is it better to attack with only 39000 for sure lose, but avoiding the NW loss. 39000 would stil inflict casulties for attrition. As for containers, I'm playing with Generals turned off. Are there container ratings in a non-general game? If so, I really missed the boat here because I haven't seen any ratings on 'em. Yes they are. There are a unit option called staff rating. With out that, there are no container ratings, but that is seperate from the no generals rule. Assuming u have played with that on. Yeah that makes a difference. Ill not go to deep into that. manual will explain it. playing with out advanced supply ofc limits the ways in which 1 of the ratings, logistic, affects ur game. #5 - I know I'm playing with the supply rules turned off. If they were on, would this change the status of the Army of VA? This is a biggie and I haven't really seen a straight answer yet. If an army is cut off from all supply in the manner I described, are there (and what are they) negative effects on that army group? yes it makes a difference playing with out advanced supply. That said. Supply with advanced rules doesnt work like in boardgames, it works and is designed very differently. So when u say u cut an army group of from supply, then supply doesnt work in a boardlike manner. Supply isnt tracing a supplyline to some where per say. If a container is in a self own province it can supply, but saying that isnt as easy as just that. I would suggest u play with advanced supply to get a better feel of the system. its sorta hard to descripe effects of some thing which u havent tried and naturally dont have a feel of. U get that once reading the manual and playing ofc. I'm most concerned with #1 (the disparity between simming and hex combat) What exactly do u mean by simming? i ask cuz it isnt a term normally used here in the forum so seeing how i think we talked past each other before. i better make very sure before trying to give an answer. I probably don't know how to properly take advantage of my academies and other city improvements I've built. I figure I'll find out how when I get the manual. Academies help on container ratings. Each academy can train a container rating 2 times in each of the May turns, to a max of good. Plus for every 5 academies u have the starting ratings of a container have a chance of starting out being higher. I'm most concerned with #1 (the disparity between simming and hex combat), #5 (supply, which I readily admit was turned off), #6 (supertroops) and #7 (points). Some of those concerns have been taken care of, some are still worrying me. My own personal opinions here. #1 can the be a difference in the 2, yes. Again there are so many factors playing in, and before im fully sure i understand what u mean by simming it can be hard to help/answer. First and foremost if u ur self play out the HWs since humans tend to be better than AIs that i see good players producing much more decisive results. #5 i think i know where u comming from. Correct me if im wrong. Yes things will change with advance supply on. I get the feeling u expecting a: i've surround a unit in usual boardgames fashion, unit is now halved in combat values. If that is the expectation u might get disapointed. Supply is designed to work very differently and seems to work out very well, it goes more to show the economical costs and showing the disparincy of economical might of the 2 nations. I suggest trying it out. If u have taken most of CSA and ANV still in VA. It will get affected by simply not having the resources to supply it, but not in a direct board like manner for being surrounded. So if u feel u dont get a direct answer it is cuz giving the strait answer doenst do the supply system justice IMO. #6 and 7. I think u just need to play more. As said i've played alot and where as I with 1 and 5 i could see issues, not necesarrily saying im agreeing or disagreeing with you. IMHO there are no problems i've noticed about points 6 and 7. Hope it helps, Rasmus' Edit : p.s Coming back to the main intent of my question, is there a key research technology that is almost a must-have on the battlefields of 1865? No. The more tech's the better, but no there isnt a single must have one.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125