RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

Erik Rutins -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 6:28:47 PM)

The CSC rule is added complexity. It's a great rule, but if you turn it on you had better know how to use it and make full use of it, because the AI will. Turning on the CSC rule _requires_ that you understand it and focus on making use of it to get the best results. Keeping it off is much easier for learning the game, I think all advanced players will eventually want to turn it on.



spruce -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 6:47:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The CSC rule is added complexity. It's a great rule, but if you turn it on you had better know how to use it and make full use of it, because the AI will. Turning on the CSC rule _requires_ that you understand it and focus on making use of it to get the best results. Keeping it off is much easier for learning the game, I think all advanced players will eventually want to turn it on.


in theory, is it a bonus for the CSA - in other words - do they have better leaders at average ?



GShock -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 7:21:09 PM)

It's not a malus it's a must to know how to use if enabled. The AI knows how to use it, so if you can't use it, better turn it off or you'll play at disadvantage.
The same can be said if you play a human opponent, but at least, the human opponent suffers from psychological effects such as probe, fear, impatience...gamble...[;)]
It's more prone to make mistakes.

It's not so hard to learn it, and if you don't play hidden and randomized stats, the historical corps formations are good because the stats were ported accurately imho in the game. Using CsC with semi random and hidden stats successfully is really hard because you have no idea of who's the best man for the job until he's been tested on the battlefield.



silber -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 7:36:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

Erik, thank you,

I understand better now. About scouting - I always scouted with Stuart - I scout and then I assign Stuart to the battle ? This is a standard rule in the game I had guessed by now ?


I usually scout twice, or scout two areas.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 8:52:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
I understand better now. About scouting - I always scouted with Stuart - I scout and then I assign Stuart to the battle ? This is a standard rule in the game I had guessed by now ?


You can do that, but I recommend more cavalry and scouting until the enemy forces are all revealed before committing to battle. So you should be scouting with Stuart every turn and making sure that the area you plan to attack is fully scouted. If it's fully scouted, then you can just scout once before battle and have him participate. If it's unscouted, just one scouting trip is unlikely to scout everyone.



Doc o War -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 9:08:03 PM)

I am playing constantly with CSC on and I am beginning to think the confeds have a bit of a disadvantage there- every turn the union gets 5 new leaders to the confeds 4- over the course of the year the union ends up with 12 new leaders more than the confeds- also they get 5 more than the rebs at the startup in Jan 62- - so by the end of the 62 year nearly 20 more slots for the UNion - when being pushed hard by a human player it is very hard for the rebs to gather enough 1 stars to flesh out his corps structure and man all the various positions that need leaders. The upper level generals are about matched- but at the 1 star level I am being outpaced by my Union opponent. Not sure what the fix might be? - but why cannot both sides get the same 5 leaders per month?  I dont think the confeds or the union ever really had a lack of commanders to flesh out any formation they ever fielded. I am pondering this- I'm sure I am overlooking something- but I dont think the confeds should have any less leadership arriving per month than the union.
 



Joel Billings -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 9:30:50 PM)

The difference is because the confeds have less forces so they need less leaders. The limits are intentional as rear area formations were not the match of the main army fighting corps. We want there to be a shortage so that some areas will not have fully fleshed out corps. I think the Union has trouble filling out their slots, although the Confederate players does have to assign a certain number of leaders to garrison ports where militia might be mobilized.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (10/31/2008 10:52:15 PM)

As Joel said, the Union needs more leaders because it has more forces to command. There's always a shortage on the Union side. The Confederacy also gets the Corps system one month before the Union does, so that it has time to prepare Corps in the key areas. For both sides though, until later in the war there are never quite enough leaders to go around to have every Corps perfectly commanded, so you have to make some choices.



Doc o War -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (11/1/2008 7:23:27 AM)

OK- I can understand that



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (11/1/2008 5:02:11 PM)

[:)][:)]It is a great game.  Overall I like it the way it is!



spruce -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (11/1/2008 6:20:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

It's not a malus it's a must to know how to use if enabled. The AI knows how to use it, so if you can't use it, better turn it off or you'll play at disadvantage.



No Gshock, that wasn't my point.

My point was that CSC rule could be a bonus for the CSA as they had on average better leaders historically (at beginning of the war for sure).

F.e. a Union corps can have a crack corps commander, but at average more crappy division commanders, in relation with a Confederate corps that has also a crack corps commander, but at average better division commanders.

So my question is - are the Confederate generals at average better ? So indeed giving the confederate trooper - ON AVERAGE - a higher bonus in battle ?



Erik Rutins -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (11/1/2008 6:47:30 PM)

I'd say the CSA has better leaders 1861-1862 at the Army and Corps level. The leadership gap starts to shrink by 1863 if the Union player is doing his job right in developing his better leaders. I think the CSA still has an edge in the late war if they've played their cards right and not had any unlucky casualty rolls, but it's not as significant, and by the late war they need all the help they can get usually.



Joel Billings -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (11/2/2008 2:59:46 AM)

I would agree with Erik and add that I think the leadership difference at the division level (CSC's) is not as great as it is at the higher levels. In fact, there may be little difference at that level, although I haven't done a full analysis of the leaders in the database and those that generally get activated.



spruce -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (11/2/2008 8:42:15 AM)

I hereby declare to be happy with this game - so I changed the title, [:)][:D]



Texican -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? YES I AM (11/8/2008 5:08:05 AM)

More and more, now that I understand it better (and have the benefit of the recent patch).

Also helps to throw a few extra Civil War tunes into the music folder (i.e., Ashokan Farewell, and the theme to the Gettysburg movie).

I am still clueless about Supply rules; I just sort of sense that I should spend half to 2/3ds my production on supply or things slow down.



GShock -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? YES I AM (11/8/2008 9:56:38 AM)

We could really use some mods and modders for the game. Not only the sound mods, but also a good leader mod adding more, even with fantasy names, colonels to help building the CSC structure properly. For the moment, we only have the excellent Bo's alternative icons. [:)]



John Neal -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? YES I AM (11/8/2008 7:04:18 PM)

Texican -

Regarding the amount of supply, I look at how much I spent last turn. (Press the 'E' key).
Depending on how many unit's I'm building, add a bit to that.
And look a how much I have 'in the bank'. each factory builds 10 supply, so with
that info I can determine how much supply i need to build.
consider how much you'll need for building forts/depots
I like to keep some extra for emergencies.

(perhaps you already know the above, and are talking about stuff like the comment below,
which I have made elsewhere)

As the union, I don't like to build a bunch of artillery I can't command when using the Corps commander rule,so might as well quite a few factories. I build around 15 on the 1st turn. (actually I could build more, but don't really need to right away) This may be a mistake, I end up with plenty of supply even when building boats at every opportunity. I could build more artillery and use the extras in defense. I hate getting my guns captured for lack of command. I'd rather get good infantry commanders than the lousy artillery commanders until I can command all the infantry i need to.



GShock -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? YES I AM (11/8/2008 7:41:23 PM)

You may very well attach arty to infantry leaders, John...they're sometimes better than arty leaders themselves. [:)]



sushidog -> RE: Are you really happy with this game ? (5/12/2015 11:57:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce



And I highly question the ratings of Union leaders ! Grant nearly gets the same ratings as Lee - that's a joke.




Reading through this old thread to glean some info about supply, I came across this. I think this is what makes the ACW so fascinating. 150+ years later we're still arguing about who is the better general.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.844238