Patch feedback (Full Version)

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



Message

moose1999 -> Patch feedback (4/17/2009 12:45:27 PM)

Just took the patch for a spin (though I haven't really got time!) and here's a little spontaneous feedback on the new zoom-function.

It's great, of course, but when zoomed out it gets very hard to scroll the map by touching the edge of the screen. It moves slowly, in very small steps - you really have to use the arrow keys instead which are only a little better.

The command for zooming is ctrl + mousewheel, like in COG:EE - but in COG:EE this is going to change in the coming patch (I assume) to just being the mousewheel because of popular demand...
Why not do the same for FOF - I think it's reasonable to say the popular demand would be the same on the FOF forum... [;)]

Great looking patch - looking forward to investigating it further next week... [:)]



Bison36 -> RE: Patch feedback (4/18/2009 11:06:15 PM)

(Long time troll. First time poster. [:)])

Just wanted to first of all thank you for getting the patch out.  Started a new campaign tonight to reunite the union. 

+1 to briny's comment about the scroll speed on full zoom out.  However, the whole ctrl+mouse wheel didn't bother me at all.  I like the scroll button on the mouse to move the map north and south, but thats just me. 





dolphinsfan9910 -> RE: Patch feedback (4/19/2009 5:25:33 PM)

I like the WTF adjustments based on reinforcements. It has made the game more realistic for me.



Kielec -> RE: Patch feedback (4/19/2009 7:57:56 PM)

Ditto on WTF/reinforcements.



Randomizer -> RE: Patch feedback (4/20/2009 2:38:49 AM)

Add one more thumbs-up.  Now better reason to consider the "Interior Lines" option when available in Detailed Combat.

Best Regards



moose1999 -> RE: Patch feedback (4/20/2009 12:44:26 PM)

Yeah, the WTF adjustments with reinforcements has hit me hard (in the good way) as my favorite strategy (playing as the South) of engaging smaller Union armies and defeating them before reinforcements show up is now much harder to accomplish.
Divide and conquer takes a little more effort, now.
And interior lines is a must! But you don't win the initiative very often when going up against that tough bastard Grant... [;)]





Rexor -> RE: Patch feedback (4/20/2009 4:26:55 PM)

Sorry for the stupid question, but what's "WTF"? [:(]



moose1999 -> RE: Patch feedback (4/20/2009 4:37:01 PM)

No stupid question!
WTF = Will To Fight.
A number that goes up and down (primarily down) for each side during a tactical battle. A sort of morale-bar.
If a brigade routs the WTF of the whole army will take a hit.
When the WTF gets too low your whole army will rout and you'll have lost the battle.
There is more to it than that (the WTF value is comprised of many different components that have their own separate values, WTF is an overall expression of these) but that's the basics.




Rexor -> RE: Patch feedback (4/20/2009 5:15:40 PM)

Ahhh, thanks Briny. I haven't played the game in a while, so I had forgotten. Now that the eagerly anticipated patch is out, I might have to give it a go again. FoF is a great game.



marcbarker -> RE: Patch feedback (4/21/2009 12:44:59 AM)

I did notice the USA National will has gone down very Quickly and it was not due to my outstanding geralship of the CSA. I played Default CSA. Ky went USA. I took Topeka. Fended off 2 battles at Fredricksburg with wins......Just curious how -6 got be there so quick



oldspec4 -> RE: Patch feedback (4/21/2009 1:51:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

I did notice the USA National will has gone down very Quickly and it was not due to my outstanding geralship of the CSA. I played Default CSA. Ky went USA. I took Topeka. Fended off 2 battles at Fredricksburg with wins......Just curious how -6 got be there so quick


Same for me. Also playing as CSA at First Sarge level. Now late November '61 and Union is at -7. Prior to last turn the Union was at -4 after I had won a couple of battles at Fredericksburg and Memphis. Last turn I won again at Fredericksburg but lost a large battle in Kentucky (Kentucky having gone Union). Not sure why the further -3 drop in NW. May be WAD but I can't determine why.



Floyd -> RE: Patch feedback (4/21/2009 2:58:16 PM)

Only decisive battles modify NW and the results should be reported in
the events report. On the other hand, plunder modifies NW:
Every mansion or plantation building destroyed by plunder reduces
the National Will of the nation being plundered by 1.

At -7 things go down hill:
National Will directly affects a player’s level of Attitude among the nation’s governors. NW below -6 lowers the Attitude
for all governors by 3 points each turn; if NW is at -12, then Attitude falls by 6 points each turn. These decreases are
doubled for opposition governors (Democrat governors in the USA, Republican governors in the CSA).




oldspec4 -> RE: Patch feedback (4/21/2009 3:31:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Floyd

Only decisive battles modify NW and the results should be reported in
the events report. On the other hand, plunder modifies NW:
Every mansion or plantation building destroyed by plunder reduces
the National Will of the nation being plundered by 1.

At -7 things go down hill:
National Will directly affects a player’s level of Attitude among the nation’s governors. NW below -6 lowers the Attitude
for all governors by 3 points each turn; if NW is at -12, then Attitude falls by 6 points each turn. These decreases are
doubled for opposition governors (Democrat governors in the USA, Republican governors in the CSA).




Thx for the reply...my original comments were way off re: NW. I was looking at the total victory numbers for the Union (-7). This included -5 for battles and -2 for the NW.



Ironclad -> RE: Patch feedback (4/21/2009 7:37:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

I did notice the USA National will has gone down very Quickly and it was not due to my outstanding geralship of the CSA. I played Default CSA. Ky went USA. I took Topeka. Fended off 2 battles at Fredricksburg with wins......Just curious how -6 got be there so quick


Your capture of Topeka will account for most of that as its a state capital so increasing the Union NW penalty for its loss. The Union suffers a higher NW reduction than the CSA does in such circumstances.



marcbarker -> RE: Patch feedback (4/21/2009 9:56:40 PM)

thanx



Randomizer -> RE: Patch feedback (4/28/2009 7:24:34 PM)

I have to say that I really like the tweaks to the AI in detailed combat.  So far have found it much less predictable and see far fewer ineffective, piecemeal attacks and futile unsupported charges.  Also the new DC reinforcement WTF and supply changes are excellent improvements.  Well Done to all at WCS and Thanks for the patch.

Best Regards



IronWarrior -> RE: Patch feedback (4/28/2009 11:04:03 PM)

I noticed my little first impression peeve about using the renamed container name when a governor asks for appointing staff made it in. [&o]

Adding my thanks for the patch!



Mad Russian -> RE: Patch feedback (7/19/2009 1:46:51 AM)

How do I tell what version I have? I ran the patch but where does the game display the version?

Also, I got this error message when I tried to run the patch. I went ahead and ran it anyway. Haven't had time to go in and look at the game since running the patch but why would running the patch require any minimum requirements?

Good Hunting.

MR

[image]local://upfiles/28652/87FFBF37752D4FC8AC2F2CEDCB13CDF0.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Patch feedback (7/19/2009 3:33:24 AM)

It always shows the version in small letters/numbers in one of the corners of the initial load screen.

I need clarification on "run the patch" -- I take it that this message came up when loading the game after you had installed the patch? If so, this must be the message that appears when one tries to run the game with less than 1GB RAM. For some reason this isn't in the patch documentation, but in this patch or an earlier one we had given players who didn't meet this minimum the option of playing in "Low Animation Mode," since detailed combat is the main memory hog. If you're only playing PBEM this shouldn't be an issue, especially since you were able to play before. (Please let us know if there is some other problem.)



Mad Russian -> RE: Patch feedback (7/19/2009 7:01:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

It always shows the version in small letters/numbers in one of the corners of the initial load screen.


That's what I thought too but I didn't see it. I'll look again.

quote:


I need clarification on "run the patch" -- I take it that this message came up when loading the game after you had installed the patch?


I unzipped the patch and when I clicked on it to execute the patch that's the message I got.

quote:


If so, this must be the message that appears when one tries to run the game with less than 1GB RAM. For some reason this isn't in the patch documentation, but in this patch or an earlier one we had given players who didn't meet this minimum the option of playing in "Low Animation Mode," since detailed combat is the main memory hog. If you're only playing PBEM this shouldn't be an issue, especially since you were able to play before. (Please let us know if there is some other problem.)


I went ahead and ran the patch execution. It seems to have unloaded. I was not starting the game. I wasn't even in the game. Only the game folder and was just trying to unload the patch files into the game folder.

Good Hunting.

MR



Gil R. -> RE: Patch feedback (7/19/2009 8:08:31 AM)

That's very strange. I've not seen a report on that, but it looks like an issue with the Matrix installer rather than the patch itself. Could you please start a new thread on this in the tech support forum and post that screenshot again? It looks like something for Erik Rutins to check into, and he's more likely to see your question there.



terje439 -> RE: Patch feedback (7/19/2009 9:31:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

It always shows the version in small letters/numbers in one of the corners of the initial load screen.


That's what I thought too but I didn't see it. I'll look again.




Upper right corner, in the screen with the quotes.



steel god -> RE: Patch feedback (7/20/2009 3:08:06 PM)

Steve;

FWIW

I got that error message when installing the patch as well, and "assumed" it was just letting me know I didn't have the 1GB of RAM necessary to run the detailed combat routines. I ignored, as I'm a PBEM type only, and the game works just fine despite the error message. I get a similar message every time I start the game, but just select "low animation" and off it goes.

Paul



Mad Russian -> RE: Patch feedback (7/21/2009 8:00:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: steel god

Steve;

FWIW

I got that error message when installing the patch as well, and "assumed" it was just letting me know I didn't have the 1GB of RAM necessary to run the detailed combat routines. I ignored, as I'm a PBEM type only, and the game works just fine despite the error message. I get a similar message every time I start the game, but just select "low animation" and off it goes.

Paul


Thanks Paul. That's probably what it is. I was just surprised to see an error message during the unzipping process.

Glad to see you over on this site. Hope all is well with you.

Good Hunting.

MR



Anthropoid -> RE: Patch feedback (7/30/2009 12:37:31 AM)

Where _is_ the patch? Through the member's area downloads only?



Randomizer -> RE: Patch feedback (7/30/2009 3:00:09 AM)

@ Anthropoid
Correct Sir, you need to be registered in the Member's area through the Matrix Community link.  The patch works fine; I'm a fan for what it's worth

Best Regards



Anthropoid -> RE: Patch feedback (7/30/2009 3:05:20 AM)

Yep, just DLed it myself. Haven't played this game for ages. Think I'll take a crack at it for 30 min or so before bedtime.



Gil R. -> RE: Patch feedback (7/30/2009 3:43:17 AM)

Just thirty minutes? That's not even enough time to read the new bios!



Anthropoid -> RE: Patch feedback (7/30/2009 4:07:40 AM)

I will definitely dive into it with gusto sometime in the near future [:)] One of my fav games ever, even long ago prior to this patch, and I think possibly one or two other ones . . . So much so, that I binged on it a bit hard. Think I finished about three games in a row over about a 4 to 6 month peiod, and had worked my way up to Sarge Major. Seems like I won it as both Union and CSA on Sarge Major. Bet if I tried it now, I'd struggle on Sarge.

Didn't manage to play tonight cause of my COGEE PBEMs, but have FoF installed and patched on my big screen hot-gaming rig and will definitely give it a whirl in the coming days and weeks



Anthropoid -> RE: Patch feedback (7/30/2009 4:15:52 AM)

Hey Gil. You and Eric ever play "Mount & Blade?" Paradox is the producer, but I think it is a small group in Scandinavia that made it.

Totally different type of game from what you guys have done so far. The stock version is a great game, but it is in a totally made up "Kingdom" called Calradia. Kinda unfun from an historical game players perspective even though the game play and overall design and play in general are fantastic. Game is set in a Medieval setting (no fantasy, though with the inability to get killed it is kinda unrealistic, although there is a mod that makes death a more real prospect), and it is more or less a medieval first person shooter, with a campaign map that you move around on and some elements of a "kingdom building" type dynamic, as well as NPC interaction stuff. The basic design is one of the best, and as with all the ones I really like, is a bit of a genre buster.

However, there is a really fantastic mod for the game (actually there seems to be an impressively active, and creative modding community with one to come out eventually that is 268 BC mod) called Hundred Years War. Can provide links if you can't find . . .

Anyway, given my repeated advocacy for WCS to make a Hundred Years War game using the WCS engine, I thought I'd recommend that you guys check out that one. _Really_ fun, and is my latest 'squeeze' (being a "Game Slut" and all [:'(] ).



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.75