RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (Full Version)

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



Message

ericbabe -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/7/2007 8:16:37 PM)

"Attack the Fort" shouldn't be available in PBEM mode as Detailed Combat is not available in PBEM.

It's not necessarily 1VP per city; cities with larger populations are worth more.




Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/7/2007 9:21:47 PM)

I guess I don't see why that isn't resolved in Instant Battle then.  But regardless, there is still an "Attack the Fort" option when you first try to lay siege in PBEM mode. 



ericbabe -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/8/2007 7:26:51 PM)

I'll check on why that option is there -- can't see any problems with the code having given it a quick look.



LeBlaque -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/8/2007 10:59:53 PM)

I have not yet tested this patch, but "Attack the Fort" WAS indeed available pre-patch in PBEM and used repetitively by my opponent and I. Essentially, when you "attacked the fort" on a City it would revert to a QB format and the city defenders would flee, allowing an instantaneous taking of the City without any opportunity to rescue it. I believe the outcome of an "attack the fort" command on an actual fort was that you would be transferred to a QB, the defenders would "flee," a few (if any) losses would be taken to both sides, and the fort defenders would re-occupy the fort. Essentially speaking, "Attack the Fort" was the best command to give in PBEM for a City, and the worst command to give in PBEM for a fort....

Regards,

LeBlaque



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/10/2007 10:03:50 PM)

Joram,
What you posted a few days ago, was exactly what I noticed with the NW points. BTW, nice pics!! [8D] I canīt attach those things... [:(] Iīve played during this weekend, and most of the cities Iīve conquered give negative NW points to me... so I hope this issue is fixed in the patch...
Max



LeBlaque -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/10/2007 10:40:38 PM)

Is there any significant chance that a save game file can be created in this patch or a future one for TCP/IP play in the middle of detailed battles? With no save game opportunity in multiplayer hexwars and PBEM limited to QB, the game becomes, IMHO, severely handicapped relative to multi-player. I understand this is a minority of your customer-base but it sure would be valuable for us that like to play one-on-one.


Secondly, did the resource graphic bug discussed here get fixed?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1513898&mpage=1&key=�



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/10/2007 10:46:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoePirulo

Joram,
What you posted a few days ago, was exactly what I noticed with the NW points. BTW, nice pics!! [8D] I canīt attach those things... [:(] Iīve played during this weekend, and most of the cities Iīve conquered give negative NW points to me... so I hope this issue is fixed in the patch...
Max


Oh, I simply hit Alt-Print Screen (Alt confines the screen capture to the active window) to take the image. Then I open up MS Paint and then edit->paste it into it (or just hit ctrl-v to paste). I then just save it as a jpg and voila, you have your screenshot.



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 1:15:45 AM)

Thanks Joram! Iīll try next time... [:)] One thing Iīve noticed after playing the patch a while is that the camps consume lots of manpower points... maybe too much for me, but thatīs only a personal opinion (I donīt have enough knowledge of the populations of the CW era). Any notices of the ETA of the official patch? Thanks,
Max.



Gil R. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 4:46:09 AM)

No word on the gold patch's ETA. It makes sense to test things a bit longer, since the last thing we need is to release the gold patch and then have some problem be discovered that should have been caught previously.

Regarding the camps consuming manpower, what do people think? It's a very significant change, since (assuming one is playing with advanced options toggled on), lower population means both less economic production and fewer potential brigades that can be raised. Is the amount of population consumed by camps too high, too low, or just right?



jecunningham -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 1:34:40 PM)

I've finished playing my first scenario with the patch. I played USA against the game's AI as CSA. The Southern hordes issue is definitely fixed. It does feel, and I stress the word feel, like perhaps the camps consume a little too much population. I built enough camps to generate about 8.000 troops per turn for replacements. During the April 1864 turn I believe the North gained 31 pop and lost 22 or 23 of it to camps. The left me with only a few pops that I could use for muster/conscript/buy brigades. Again, I would defer to someone with a little stronger historical knowledge, but it never felt like the North was gradualy pulling ahead of the South in manpower availability. The game ended with both sides at equal militay strength.



Gil R. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 7:19:19 PM)

Thanks for the feedback. As those of you who are playing get deep into games or finish them we'd definitely like to get input on this issue.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 8:46:19 PM)

Just for quantitative comparison and to give a peek into how the recent increase in camp population use was arrived at, a camp generates 300 + 15 per pop replacements per turn. Let's say it's in a Population 5 city, that means 450 replacements per turn if the city is at max population, or 337 if it's at 0/5 Let's say you get an average of 400 per turn for 26 turns per year, for a total of 10,400 replacements from that camp in that year.

If you played the game a fair amount, you know that camps were quite a bargain in previous versions as far as what you got for what they cost. They previously had a chance to consume 1 population per turn.

We can assume for design purposes that say 50% of the replacements that come from a camp are sick/wounded troops being returned to their units, so not really a draw on the remaining male adult population. So that brings us down to 5,200 per year. Producing, conscripting or mustering a brigade of 2000-3000 men costs you 2 population, so this is equivalent to about 4 population worth of new manpower. The camp now has five 25% chances to consume one population each, which means that in general each camp will consume 1-2 population per year, though it could consume up to 5, but over the course of all your camp rolls you'll generally end up close to the average usage per year. This still works out to a very reasonable bargain as you are usually paying about half of cost of the same amount of manpower if you had produced/conscripted/mustered to generate it.

The additional caveat is that camp replacements are now decreased by 50% if the city's population goes to 0, but as you can see from the above, this just removes the "bargain" without making them cost more than the manpower should

If you look at a camp in a much larger city, say population 20, it becomes an even greater bargain, whereas camps in pop 1/2 cities make a lot less sense.

Regards,

- Erik



ericbabe -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 8:48:02 PM)

We'll probably want to release a new patch for public beta testing that fixes a few of the things you'all have found on this thread before we go gold with it. 



Viking67 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 10:22:43 PM)

Playing as the Union vs. CSA AI, Kentucky went to the CSA on the second turn of Southern Steel (Balanced). The Union later took Lexington and the Union's "Will" went down. This must be an error.



Viking67 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/12/2007 11:45:40 PM)

It happened again... this time the Union captured Louisville and lost National "Will" for doing so.



Viking67 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/13/2007 8:05:46 PM)

Has this bug already been reported?



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/14/2007 12:00:38 AM)

Viking,
yes, in the previous page Joram and me posted similar issues, so I think the devs are in knowledge of it.
Max



cesteman -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/14/2007 12:47:00 AM)

How did this slip through the crack I wonder?



Mus -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/14/2007 3:04:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Regarding the camps consuming manpower, what do people think? It's a very significant change, since (assuming one is playing with advanced options toggled on), lower population means both less economic production and fewer potential brigades that can be raised. Is the amount of population consumed by camps too high, too low, or just right?



Regarding Camps, Im not really ready to say if the drain is too high or low, etc. I will say I dont really understand why camps are given 5 25% chances to reduce population. Sometimes you lose barely any, sometimes 1 camp in a city will leave the city almost completely drained.

Would personally rather see a camp have a 100% chance to take whatever population is considered balanced after a bunch more playtesting. If 1 and a fraction is considered appropriate than make it a 100% chance to consume 1 and a certain percent chance to consume another.


quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

How did this slip through the crack I wonder?


Sounds like a transposition of a value or some other typo when they fixed whatever wasnt working right with NW losses to begin with.

PS I am pleased with brigade and horse artillery attachments now WAD, and also like the corrected special unit file that makes more lengendary units available.



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/14/2007 7:23:53 PM)

Adding to Mus proposition (100 % chance of consuming 1 PP and 25% of consuming a second PP), I think that the camp consuming PP routine should be before the gaining of PP in april. Again, itīs a personal opinion. I play the CSA, and most of the cities have low Population. I donīt recruit/muster/conscription often, to conserve PP for camps reinforcements. Cities with 1-3 Population could become depleted in 1862 with only one camp... But if it is intended to be so, itīs Ok then...
Max.



ericbabe -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/14/2007 7:33:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman
How did this slip through the crack I wonder?


The beta testers aren't as vigorously active these days.



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/14/2007 7:57:12 PM)

And the fact that it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't ...



cesteman -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/15/2007 2:41:59 AM)

interesting Joram. Are you saying that sometimes the nation will doesn't change and sometimes it does? To answer Eric's reply I was hinting at why wasn't it caught during testing. I know there are a lot of things that go unchecked, but maybe in the future we should assign someone to check specific things, like as an example I was trying to recreate the disappearing city problem after both sides had taking a city. Just something to think about for future updates. Cheers!



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/15/2007 3:20:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

interesting Joram. Are you saying that sometimes the nation will doesn't change and sometimes it does? To answer Eric's reply I was hinting at why wasn't it caught during testing. I know there are a lot of things that go unchecked, but maybe in the future we should assign someone to check specific things, like as an example I was trying to recreate the disappearing city problem after both sides had taking a city. Just something to think about for future updates. Cheers!


Close, I'm saying sometimes the NW changes correctly and sometimes it doesn't and often it's actually backwards.



Gil R. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/18/2007 9:37:42 AM)

So any thoughts out there about the new Kentucky forts in the November scenarios, or the fact that Fort Monroe now starts off with the Department of Virginia inside, instead of just having the generic garrison unit there?

Any reactions to the way that "nesting" generals for Turn 1 works?

Now that people have had this patch for a while, are there thoughts on what's right/wrong with it, other than what's been posted so far?



Houtje -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/18/2007 10:26:32 AM)

I'd say the patch is working fine, other than the NW-problem. The changes make for a smoother gameplay (esp. the two supply rules changes in HW). I have noticed, however, that the Union in the Coming Fury scenario is somewhat more aggressive than it should be. Their armies aren't that big yet, but as CSA I've had Lyon's Division lunging for Little Rock from July 1861 onward, even when they were constantly beaten by Price (and had only about 2000 men left). Similarly, the USA also tries to attack Memphis and Fort Henry way too early - with 30,000 against my 45,000. In the East they also attack, but there's always more of a parity in troop strength over there.



wzh55 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/18/2007 8:17:04 PM)

Gil,
I have been playing the new version for a while now and have not seen what I would consider a bug (other than those already mentioned, and then I'm not sure of those, they are beyond my expertise sometimes). What I have noticed is that when playing as the Confederates, first sergeant level, advanced version of any scenario, is that it is all I can do is hang on. The difficulty level is much harder with all the tweaks, probably close to how it really was. Most of my brigades are at 1000 or less, and the only way to gain new brigades is through conscription until the governors are sick of it. Supply levels of everything except horses are bouncing near zero continuously. Even though this is probably as historically accurate as you can get it, my point is this: this difficultly level should be reflected higher up in the settings, say somewhere in the mid range as opposed to where it is now, near the lowest difficulty level (only 2-3 levels remain as easier). For those ones starting out on the game, I can see how it would be easy to get frustrated and quit. In my opinion, many games are so difficult to win against the AI that people tend to play them for awhile and then give up and go to another game. And then there is the other end of the spectrum, when the game is too easy and people quit after quickly "beating" the game. A good game has a wide range of difficulty settings, with other ways to tweak the game, making it harder or easier. This game has all that except the settings are geared to be hard nearer the bottom of the difficulty setting, and this seems to make it harder to find that sweet spot where the game is just right for you, not too hard where you get frustrated and quit, and not too easy where you would play maybe a game or two at the hardest level and find it child's play and quit.
But after all that said, when that is the only thing you can find wong with a game, that game has to be good. Thanks for letting me put my 2 cents worth in.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/18/2007 8:39:41 PM)

Bill,

You can always keep the difficulty the same, but try giving the CSA +1 Power to see if that makes it a bit more fun for you. I do agree though that the balance in the latest version feels pretty historical. Walking a mile in Jeff Davis' shoes is a very difficult walk indeed.

Regards,

- Erik



Gil R. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/18/2007 10:48:20 PM)

Erik,
You're right that one can give the CSA +1 power to solve the problem, but one shouldn't have to do that at one of the easier settings. At a default setting of +0 power and an easy level, the CSA player shouldn't feel too frazzled all the time.

Bill,
To what do you attribute this lack of manpower and resources? Is it there from the start, or is it due to the camps eating up population each April? As I've written above, one of the most important questions we need to settle is whether the population/depopulation that occurs in April is about right, and especially whether camps are consuming too much population. Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/18/2007 11:00:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You're right that one can give the CSA +1 power to solve the problem, but one shouldn't have to do that at one of the easier settings. At a default setting of +0 power and an easy level, the CSA player shouldn't feel too frazzled all the time.


I'd have to disagree with you. The whole point of all these options is to tailor the game to each player. There's really no "one size fits all" as far as subjective/anecdotal reports on game difficulty. Sergeant/First Sergeant is meant to be the historical setting and historically it was tough for the south. You can balance this against other reports that the CSA has it too easy or that the North has it too tough on that same setting. My take is that on the default "historical" settings the balance is about right and players that don't want to deal with the other effects of the difficulty level can just adjust the power.

quote:

To what do you attribute this lack of manpower and resources? Is it there from the start, or is it due to the camps eating up population each April? As I've written above, one of the most important questions we need to settle is whether the population/depopulation that occurs in April is about right, and especially whether camps are consuming too much population. Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.


I'm not sure why you're quite this concerned about the camps - after a bunch of reports in internal and public testing show that the CSA hordes are gone and balance seems about right... ? There are so many other factors involved in a given game that you'd pretty much have to look at a few save files to really determine where any particular strategy went wrong.

Regards,

- Erik



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625