Wicked bombardment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray



Message

Basilhare -> Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 1:21:12 PM)

Does the Bombardment effect seem overstated to anyone else or is just me?

I have had Union Ships bombard my Confederate coastal forts and eliminate entire units several different times and then this last turn, I had an entire Confederate army corps eliminated from a massive Union bombardment...suffered something like 213 hits...wiped out several divisons worth of troops and a half dozen batteries of guns...Hmmm...doesnt seem quite right???

Anyone else experiencing this?



ravinhood -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 4:25:16 PM)

Lol Sounds like the computer AI has used Stargate to go back in time methinks. hahahaha



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 4:42:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Basilhare
I have had Union Ships bombard my Confederate coastal forts and eliminate entire units several different times and then this last turn, I had an entire Confederate army corps eliminated from a massive Union bombardment...suffered something like 213 hits...wiped out several divisons worth of troops and a half dozen batteries of guns...Hmmm...doesnt seem quite right???



The results you quote are absolutely idiotic in any historical context relating to the ACW. About the biggest think a "bombardment" ever "wiped out" during the Civil War was the poorly-sited and weakly armed Ft. Henry..., and it's garrison merely retired to Ft. Donaldson. If what you quote as an example is even possible, then the game has a serious design flaw in need of correction.



denisonh -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 4:49:49 PM)

I have seen the exact opposite with respect to Union river fleets being totally destroyed. Fleets with ironclads simply "disappearing" under CSA guns from Armies, not forts.




ravinhood -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 4:52:15 PM)

oops wrong thread



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 4:58:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have seen the exact opposite with respect to Union river fleets being totally destroyed. Fleets with ironclads simply "disappearing" under CSA guns from Armies, not forts.



Which would also come under the heading of "historically idiotic". Fleets were "driven off", and sometimes with the loss of vessels. But "wiped out"? If you are taking that kind of "licking", you don't stay around long enough for that kind of result...



jimwinsor -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 6:23:01 PM)

This is an area that has undergone some recent patching, and is indeed still a live topic among players and designers for future patching and tweaking, searching for just the right balance:

http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4392



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/11/2007 10:21:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

This is an area that has undergone some recent patching, and is indeed still a live topic among players and designers for future patching and tweaking, searching for just the right balance:

http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4392



Delighted to hear it's under active discussion. Seems to me that "Range" and "Scale" are getting in the way. At the scale of the map, only an attempt to pass a river fort (Vicksburg, New Orleans,
Donaldson, etc) or enter a seaboard harbor (Charleston, Mobile, etc) should force an engagement.
There is no reason a force at Norfolk should have to, or even be able to, engage naval units entering the Cheasapeake (sic).





    • Queeg -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 5:39:33 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Basilhare

    Does the Bombardment effect seem overstated to anyone else or is just me?



    What game version are you playing?



    Basilhare -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 12:57:07 PM)

    quote:

    What game version are you playing?


    Version "E"



    Pocus -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 5:20:09 PM)

    1.04e or 1.05e? I would like to see this CSA corps wiped by a USA fleet, this would need correction indeed. After some debates with players, we revised the parameters some weeks ago.



    Basilhare -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 7:23:57 PM)

    quote:

    1.04e or 1.05e? I would like to see this CSA corps wiped by a USA fleet, this would need correction indeed. After some debates with players, we revised the parameters some weeks ago.


    I had patched to version 1.05e before playing (I bought the game last week).

    The Corps was not wiped out by a fleet, but by bombardment from an adjacent Corps or perhaps a loan heavy artillery unit in the same region.

    The situation was this: Confederate Corps (appx 600sp) occupies Alexandria. A single unit of Union Coastal Artillery moves into the Alexandria region and lays seige. Washington DC has quite a bit of Union artillery and firepower located therein, as well. Turn resolution shows a bombardment in Alexandria but no battle. I re-ran the turn several times and everytime the Union bombardment totally destroyed the Confederate Corps. In all cases, the Corps commander was left and one or two of the division commanders, but no units. All units were completely eliminated. The turn result says the corps was bombarded and suffered 213 hits.




    Mike Scholl -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 8:00:58 PM)

    That's Nasty!   And would seem to be a problem.   With all the siege artillery McClellan took to the Penninsula in the Spring of 1862, if this occurs regularly in the game the Rebel Troops should have been reduced to atoms long before Lee took command.  Hope someone's checking this out.



    captskillet -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 8:08:46 PM)

    Hey if they can time warp the Nimitz back to 1941 then sending the New Jersey & Wisconsin back to 1862 are a piece of cake[;)] !



    Shawkhan -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 8:39:06 PM)

    ...As most of us undoubtedly know, one of the unique aspects of the ACW was that artillery was pretty useless in offense, and only really worthwhile within cannister(shotshell range) of 400m or less in the defense. The advent of the rifled musket gave infantry a range greater than this effective range of artillery.
    ...Bombardment of infantry by naval forces was more a matter of keeping the infantry awake than doing much actual damage. Casualties should be quite negligible. Naval guns could take up to 15 minutes or longer to fire just one shot. Successful naval bombardment of land fortifications just didn't happen in the civil war.



    jimwinsor -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 9:04:00 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Basilhare

    quote:

    1.04e or 1.05e? I would like to see this CSA corps wiped by a USA fleet, this would need correction indeed. After some debates with players, we revised the parameters some weeks ago.


    I had patched to version 1.05e before playing (I bought the game last week).

    The Corps was not wiped out by a fleet, but by bombardment from an adjacent Corps or perhaps a loan heavy artillery unit in the same region.

    The situation was this: Confederate Corps (appx 600sp) occupies Alexandria. A single unit of Union Coastal Artillery moves into the Alexandria region and lays seige. Washington DC has quite a bit of Union artillery and firepower located therein, as well. Turn resolution shows a bombardment in Alexandria but no battle. I re-ran the turn several times and everytime the Union bombardment totally destroyed the Confederate Corps. In all cases, the Corps commander was left and one or two of the division commanders, but no units. All units were completely eliminated. The turn result says the corps was bombarded and suffered 213 hits.




    OK this is really odd because coastal artillery is supposed to be static and can't move. I think it can move by fleet though. Maybe a union fleet in the Potomac dropped it off? Weird.

    Anyways, it sounds like you did get bombarded by said fleet (which due to FOW you could not see?). Artillery in DC should play no role in any of this. You should save a save of this for Pocus!



    Basilhare -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/12/2007 9:50:13 PM)

    quote:

    OK this is really odd because coastal artillery is supposed to be static and can't move. I think it can move by fleet though. Maybe a union fleet in the Potomac dropped it off? Weird.


    Yeah, it was game killer for me...not sure what happened...probably a fluke, but I was so freaked out by it, that I have not played since and that was after investing about 20 hours of game play in a 1861 full Campaign as Confederates...i think i will await a full patch and see how things progress....



    Queeg -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/13/2007 7:09:20 AM)

    Never seen that - or anything even remotely like that - in weeks of play. Never seen coastal artillery move. Never seen lone artillery (or lone unit of any kind) attack a Corps. Much less destroy a Corps.

    I'd strongly encourage you to send a save file to Pocus. He's great about looking into things like this. If it's a real problem, I'm sure he'll find and fix it.



    Pocus -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/13/2007 9:48:18 AM)

    if there is a real problem, I need the saved game, otherwise it won't magically disapears in the next patch :)

    So please... send it to support@ageod.com. The procedure is as follow:

    Open the following game directory: Ageod American civil war\ACW\Saves. The list of folders is the list of the games you have on your computer. Select the one with the problem

    (if you are unsure of the name, the time stamp can help you), then do a right click: you should have a menu to zip it into an archive, as a single file. Zip the game, and then

    send it by mail if under 5 Mb, or by a website* if bigger (there should be only one file to send).

    *sending by a website: you can try http://files-upload.com/, the operating procedure is as simple as sending a mail.



    castor troy -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/24/2007 4:27:01 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Basilhare
    I have had Union Ships bombard my Confederate coastal forts and eliminate entire units several different times and then this last turn, I had an entire Confederate army corps eliminated from a massive Union bombardment...suffered something like 213 hits...wiped out several divisons worth of troops and a half dozen batteries of guns...Hmmm...doesnt seem quite right???



    The results you quote are absolutely idiotic in any historical context relating to the ACW. About the biggest think a "bombardment" ever "wiped out" during the Civil War was the poorly-sited and weakly armed Ft. Henry..., and it's garrison merely retired to Ft. Donaldson. If what you quote as an example is even possible, then the game has a serious design flaw in need of correction.





    this "feature" is known as NUKE BOMBARDMENT encountered later in WITP also... [:D][:D][:D]



    HobbesACW -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/25/2007 6:14:23 PM)

    I just had 2 heavy artillery batteries wiped out in Norfolk in one turn although they did seem to do quite a bit of damage in return. It was a bit of a shock and I wouldn't have thought all the guns in a town or entrenchment would be wiped out in this way. You would think some could be moved to safety during a heavy bombardment or repaired afterwards. If this is indicative it would be very difficult to keep artillery in one piece in coastal regions.

    Cheers, Chris




    Gem35 -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/25/2007 6:17:38 PM)

    It would be nice to see some screenshots of these horrible bombardments.



    jimwinsor -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/25/2007 8:02:43 PM)

    Unfortunately no screenshots are available, really; all you see with ships vs guns is a line in the events on the bottom of the screen, saying X hits were dished out.



    Grotius -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/26/2007 10:13:43 AM)

    I hope the original poster can send Pocus a savegame. Me, I haven't seen anything remotely like this, and I've been playing for several weeks now.



    Brooksie -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/26/2007 7:09:15 PM)

    Ive hard large river fleets destroyed by Corps artillery before, granted i think this was due in part to a low cohesion on my river fleets part as well. I think though now with 1.06 out you all will be noticing that Naval Fleet inflict little damage on coastal targets, while em placed arty is doing much more back in return.


    I think Jimwinsor was having a good day when he saw my river fleet under porter sunk.



    jimwinsor -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/28/2007 6:58:37 PM)

    Yeah, I can veryify Brooksie's comment; basically, with the new 1.06 changes, ships now have to be VERY careful approaching forts or ANY entrenched (level 5+) batteries.

    In our game, Porter with several river ironclads and gunboats tried to sail down the Cumberland, past Bragg's corps in Nashville.

    Unbeknownst to him, Bragg has 4 CSA divisions, each division having 4 batteries; each battery was at full strength (which is 6 I believe) so, there was a total of 24 x 4 = 96 guns there. The entrench level had gotten up to 7 (two more than was needed for anti-ship fire, IIRC).

    Seemed to me, all Porter was trying to do was peacefully sail past...instead the effect was like a fly landing on a bug zapper...according to the event report, Porter's fleet suffered something like 160+ hits...and Brooksie confirmed to me that yes indeed, the entire fleet was vaporized on contact.

    I cannot recall the damage caused to Bragg except that it was insignificant.

    So, I think the issue now under 1.06 is not Wicked Bombardment but perhaps Wicked Coastal Anti-Ship Fire.

    And I'm not sure the problem here is that the damage was too much...96 well sighted guns aimed at a river probably COULD so destroy a river fleet, even of ironclads.  No, the problem is that it is doubtful a river admiral would intentionally subject his fleet to that kind of punishment from batteries for as long as it would take for the annialation to be carried out.

    Perhaps what need to be done is to have ships automatically RETREAT from batteries when the heat gets too hot...much like land forces automatically retreat from combat as they currently do.  This would do much to solve the "bug zapper" problem we now seem to have.



    Gray_Lensman -> RE: Wicked bombardment (7/29/2007 3:20:26 AM)

    I like your "bug zapper" analogy. [:D]



    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    1.046875