GShock -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/18/2008 7:39:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 5_Star In the manual it states with the hardest attrition rules that you can only receive replacements in settlements with depots so I think you are correct. I actually see that they are received in depots but the replacements page states otherwise, specifying you only need a lev2 settlement whereas depots are not mentioned at all. Anyway yes, if you build a depot, wherever it is, you can get replacements there...the problem is that u can't basically build anything u can only buy supply carts and you need to seriously assess the tradeoff for you don't know when u'll be able to buy more and it takes 2 to build a depot. This is one of the hardest choices imo. The turn is 30 day long and not only the carts take hits in winter, sheltering your troops, but to siege a big settlement u need more troops and more troops use up more supply so...more carts. This uncertainty on the availability of future supply carts is a big challenge for the player. The real issue i had in the Acres of snow, comes with Louisbourg fortress. There's a 400 combat factors force there and i have to send a similar force to siege the structure. They use up 3 carts per turn, then it takes 1 more turn to embark the supply and 1 more to disembark it in Halifax (with composite distant unload move). 1 more turn to replenish supply and again 2 turns to get back there again with 1 final turn to actually join forces and give them food. It takes but one french trooper to arrive at the siege area via sea and help raise the siege for combat so i also need to keep ships blockading 2 sea zones around Louisburg with NO ship replacements ever available (which is a thing i pointed out in pvt and which is being examined as we speak). I think things being what they are...regardless of replacements coming at Halifax there's no way to make Louisburg fortress fall. The territory neighboring it is originally indian, so even if you capture it, you can't build a depot there. quote:
What setting do you generally play with against the AI? I pretty much won a major victory as the France in the Montcalm scenario on the default settings, the AI just seemed to be caught off guard at every turn and foolishly wasted Washington's troops early on in an attempt at Ft. Duquesne (in late autumn, which was easily thwarted by my irregular forces) then as winter set in with no where to go Washington again tried to siege Ft. Venango, which resulted in the annihilation of himself and his troops. [:(] AGE's AI is a calculator. The more it sees, the harder it is to fool it. Then it gets attracted to VP locations much like a real player but its "educated" to build a reasonable force to match the enemy it sees. Differently from AACW, when u separate an inactive leader the subleader is ALSO inactive. This makes, according to me, useless the AI bonus on activation for its main reason, in my point of view, is to give it the ability to storm a structure (which is not possible when the leader is inactive so on no advantage you are playing really even). Of course, a bonus there, also allows you to fight an AI without penalties in combat but i have preferred so far to play both slight and no advantage in this field without noticing a significant difference in balance. The most important setting is the Fog of War advantage. With High advantage it's a very very credible opponent while in normal you can really see it wanders about without a real goal. The AI has vastly improved with 1.02c and the d version can't be far...in fact, my report on the CTD allowed the DEVs to see the bug. Given as obvious, the AI has to have an optimized behaviour and more time to think, of course, i also ignored the easy/hard setting for I am on the offensive and it doesn't make sense to give an extra advantage to defenders. Can't wait for this patch to come out so i will restart the Acres of snow campaign. [:)] This game is not just a masterpiece, it's a work of art, the natural evolution of a winning project. In due time it will become technically much much better than AACW and, under many aspects, it already is.
|
|
|
|