RE: The AI CSA in the West (Full Version)

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



Message

Randomizer -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 3:00:48 AM)

For what it's worth I do not see this either and I play the Union far more often than the South and stated as much way back in post number 9. My house rules prevent me from packing the East and the AI appears to respond by not evacuating the rest of the Confederacy so I consider this entire thread a non-issue.

Best Regards



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 3:49:30 AM)

Randomizer,

I tried your way the last few games.  It doesn't help too much.  Even if the AI outnumbers me in the east, he still migrates.  Terje says its because there are too many men in the west.  So its a Catch-22.

Graycompany,

If people don't want to debate this, they don't have to.  Gil already said nothing is going to be done in the near future and he's implied (sorry, Gil but its true) that nothing is going to be done regardless because the focus is on difficulty levels where the player is severely handicapped and WCS couldn't care less about the difficulty levels where the player isn't.  I wonder though if WCS were more upfront about its AI policies if it would sell significantly less games.  Forums aren't too representative of the game's audience (containing too a high percentage of whiners like me and fans), so I have a strong suspicion that if people knew there was no chance of playing an even-ish game (or even just a level with AI enhancements and no player penalties, which is VERY unusual for a "recomended" level), if fewer would buy WCS games.  I never would have bought the game, but I don't regret getting it (I love a lot about it, but it's a waste of my time to play at the moment; I do regret CoG:EE, that was just a donation to WCS's coffers that brought me nothing in return). 

So my point is if you don't care, don't care.  You have WCS on your side.  :)

I'm going to keep exploring it.  Gil and others might see no value in trying to narrow down which AI bonus or player penalty leads to the AI NOT abandoning the west, but I do. 

As for why I don't try a higher difficulty: it's the combat penalty/bonus.  Quick/instant combat is already fair as it eliminates the element of tactical thinking. There's no earthly reason to give the AI a bonus there except to make the game harder, which I couldn't care less about (see my post above about the difference between not caring about being challenged and not being able to fight in the west in a Civil War game). I've seen enough of what a CSA defender at 1-2 odds can do without the penalty.  Watching it beat me at 1-2 odds isn't going to make the game any more fun.

I think this game was designed for CSA, detailed combat play.  That's just my impression (so feel free to jump all over me about it).



Graycompany -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 4:23:23 AM)

Well, I'm not going to jump all over you. You are seeing something different then I am, or other players that have posted. I think it is the best game out there. I have yet to see the AI abandon the west in any game I have played. I am in 1864 in my current game, and the CSA has a Army in TN, and are attacking Cairo. I out number them 2.5 to 3-1, I have had a number of Huge Battles out West ( something you say you havent seen). I also Continue to see Big battles in the east. The AI has twiced crossed the Potomic and Attacked Maryland, Twice I won and pushed them back, and Twice I have followed them after they lost and got pushed back my self. Cairo has changed hands in this current game 3 times, and seen a number of Corp level battles all thru out Kentucky, Ohio, TN and Missouri. I am not sure why your having the experience you are.



Randomizer -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 4:59:39 AM)

JScott991, if I came across as insulting or judgemental, I apologize.  Like Graycompany and some others, I just have not seen what you are seeing and am not experianced what you are experiancing.  To each his own.

In my latest game a Confederate army (a large division actually) just appeared in Kansas out of Indian Territory and looks to be capturing Topeka next turn.  This in the fall of 1963 so my Southern AI has certainly not abandoned the West.

Best Regards.



Gil R. -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 6:01:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
If people don't want to debate this, they don't have to.  Gil already said nothing is going to be done in the near future and he's implied (sorry, Gil but its true) that nothing is going to be done regardless because the focus is on difficulty levels where the player is severely handicapped and WCS couldn't care less about the difficulty levels where the player isn't.  I wonder though if WCS were more upfront about its AI policies if it would sell significantly less games.  Forums aren't too representative of the game's audience (containing too a high percentage of whiners like me and fans), so I have a strong suspicion that if people knew there was no chance of playing an even-ish game (or even just a level with AI enhancements and no player penalties, which is VERY unusual for a "recomended" level), if fewer would buy WCS games.  I never would have bought the game, but I don't regret getting it (I love a lot about it, but it's a waste of my time to play at the moment; I do regret CoG:EE, that was just a donation to WCS's coffers that brought me nothing in return). 


That's completely untrue. Just a few days ago I wrote:
Does any of that mean that I'm going back on my earlier statement that the high value placed on Richmond can create a problem for the AI? No. But I do not believe it is as big a problem as you are making it out to be. As I have already said, we will consider what might be done to make this less common at lower levels next time we produce a FOF patch, since obviously we want the game to be challenging at all levels. (Our programmer has suggested that maybe he can have the AI not bother with Richmond at the lowest 2-3 levels -- a change that would be relatively easy for him to make, and that might be worth testing when the time comes.)

Just because WCS does not believe that this is an urgent issue does not mean that we would not like to see an improvement. And that it is not an urgent issue is proven by the simple fact that in the 2.5+ years the game has been out you are the first person to raise a significant fuss about it. And while you are correct that forums such as this one tend to get more comments from people who like a game than dislike it, you obviously haven't been around very long, since there have been some BRUTAL comments about the game, especially before the first major patch or two came out.



Gil R. -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 6:12:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
As for why I don't try a higher difficulty: it's the combat penalty/bonus. Quick/instant combat is already fair as it eliminates the element of tactical thinking. There's no earthly reason to give the AI a bonus there except to make the game harder, which I couldn't care less about (see my post above about the difference between not caring about being challenged and not being able to fight in the west in a Civil War game). I've seen enough of what a CSA defender at 1-2 odds can do without the penalty. Watching it beat me at 1-2 odds isn't going to make the game any more fun.


At the heart of this issue is a difference in philosophy: WCS has never claimed that FOF is a simulation, but rather a game. If it were a simulation, I agree 100% that you would quite reasonably expect things to play out in a historical manner without AI resource boosts, combat boosts, etc. But as a game, it is perfectly reasonable and to be expected that higher difficulty levels will skew things in ahistorical ways in order to make the game harder.



Gil R. -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 6:23:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
Those aren't stockpile numbers.  They are the first turn income numbers on a game on 1st Sergeant, Richer economy, CSA +2 power.  Since you knew the stockpile numbers, I'm not sure why you couldn't figure out what I was talking about. Still, sorry for not being more specific.

I played with the power increase, because you had a very long explanation about why the AI stinks on first sergeant in the other thread.  You explained how the AI needs more resources because, although it is intelligent, it is inefficient.  So if the AI hopes to play at its "true" base level, it requires more resources.  The solution: give the AI more resources.  I did.  But I suspected all along that what the AI really needs is for the human player to be severely, ahistorically handicapped. It's odd to be derided for trying to use an option to achieve the effect that you told me to achieve. Now you've clearly enunciated that the AI needs the combat bonuses and other penalties as well as the economic bonuses. So that's a different wrinkle. (and as for anything Hard Sarge says to/about me or this, it's usually too buried in outright insults to be of any value).


Oh, you're playing on Richer Economy! That explains the stockpile-like levels.

You're right that I didn't raise the issue of difficulty level giving that combat boost -- it simply didn't occur to me to do so.

Hard Sarge's comments, once deciphered, tend to be of great value. As I wrote, he knows the game better than anyone other than the programmer. (Not trying to insult other players, but Hard Sarge had the unfair advantage of being involved as far back as late-alpha or early beta-testing, so not only does he know the game now, but he knows how it has developed.)



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 3:11:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
As for why I don't try a higher difficulty: it's the combat penalty/bonus. Quick/instant combat is already fair as it eliminates the element of tactical thinking. There's no earthly reason to give the AI a bonus there except to make the game harder, which I couldn't care less about (see my post above about the difference between not caring about being challenged and not being able to fight in the west in a Civil War game). I've seen enough of what a CSA defender at 1-2 odds can do without the penalty. Watching it beat me at 1-2 odds isn't going to make the game any more fun.


At the heart of this issue is a difference in philosophy: WCS has never claimed that FOF is a simulation, but rather a game. If it were a simulation, I agree 100% that you would quite reasonably expect things to play out in a historical manner without AI resource boosts, combat boosts, etc. But as a game, it is perfectly reasonable and to be expected that higher difficulty levels will skew things in ahistorical ways in order to make the game harder.



The AI can't function on First Sergeant. Your response is a straw man response (it's also almost word for word out of the Paradox playbook for telling people to go away; while all the while claiming they make historical strategy games and, thankfully, addressing these types of issues in private despite their public attacks on historical critics). I've repeatedly said that the issue isn't whether the game is hard on First Sergeant, the issue is why the AI abandons an entire front repeatedly; often for no reason. I believe, with a small amount of arrogance, that I've successfully rebutted most of the arguments raised that show that the AI moving to Richmond is a reasonable response to his situation. I've shown that his manpower isn't that low when he does it. I've shown that his macro-weapon situation isn't that desparate. I've shown his position in the east is not that bad when he does it. I've shown him do it when he is winning the game in terms of score.

This isn't about making the game harder. It's about the AI simply being incompetent. I have no qualms, as I've said, about people wanting a harder game and playing with a combination of penalties and bonuses. The combinations WCS employs are bizarre and overly harsh in my opinion based on 21 or so years of PC strategy gaming. The difference between WCS and every game I've played (from the original Civ through Stardock's games to Paradox) is that you are saying that in order for the AI to even play a semblance of a credible game, you must use the penalty/bonus difficulty levels. Otherwise he can't function. I've shown he can't function in even an unbalanced setting; apparently it's just not unbalanced enough.

My next tests will be on Captain. I am almost sure that the only thing that matters in this debate is player resources. The AI doesn't build more brigades if it has a bigger economy. I don't fight enough in my games for the combat bonus to be decisive. What needs to happen is I need to have less brigades. That, I think, is the distinguishing characteristic between my games and the games of people who don't experience this (whether they are share my difficulty level like Graycompany or play on higher levels like Terje and HS). I won't be having fun, but, hey, who cares, right? I'll be playing the game as WCS intends.



Erik Rutins -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 3:24:44 PM)

Some comments and quick questions...

I played a lot of FOF as the Union during the first year after its release and participated in a lot of the improvements to the whole game, including the AI that were incorporated in the post release updates. I haven't played with the most recent update much, but from what I recall from earlier AI games, that issue you're seeing of the AI abandoning the west was common in the early versions but addressed by some of the later AI improvements, though it may be that by mid-1863 when a Union Player at low difficulty level is usually hitting his full stride the lower difficulty AI is still getting too conservative.

Your screenshots show some overwhelming Union forces, which indicate that you're doing your job right but the AI is seeing a matchup it really doesn't like and "turtling". Honestly though, I don't think it had a chance even it if stayed out west from the force comparisons I see in your screenshots.

1. Can you please confirm the version number listed in your game and did you start all your recent games with the same version?
2. Can you please post a screenshot of the exact options you've selected for these games? Those can make a huge difference.

Regards,

- Erik



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 3:31:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Your screenshots show some overwhelming Union forces, which indicate that you're doing your job right but the AI is seeing a matchup it really doesn't like and "turtling". Honestly though, I don't think it had a chance even it if stayed out west from the force comparisons I see in your screenshots.


In some of those screenshots, there are 161,000 CSA troops in Richmond. 60,000 CSA troops out west, defending Memphis or Vicksburg in particular, are going to make a difference. Will the AI win? No. But it will be a better game and it's a smarter strategy (this is the point I can't seem to get across; there is no earthly reason for the CSA to outnumber the Union in the east or even try for better than 2-3 odds, considering the fortresses in Richmond).


My version is 1.12.2. (The April 2009 patch.)

Options attached. I have played with governors extensively. I turned them off because of the brigade request which tends to make a lot of governors bitter enemies by the endgame when it is just ridiculous to keep 20 brigades in states like Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa.

Also, Erik, thank you for your reply. Your response is the most heartening I've got, even if it comes to nothing. Even just to hear the word "turtling" is refreshing.



[image]local://upfiles/31707/F2EBBCA6BEBF49CDA13101ACED32114C.jpg[/image]



Mr. Yuck -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/16/2009 10:00:42 PM)

JScott,

I playtested this game almost 2 years ago and have not played since-so I've forgotten everything and am starting from scratch.

If you want thrills in the west, try one of the July scenarios. Play it at 1rst Sgt. You'll repeatedly get the thrust and counter-thrust you are looking for.

Ultimately, you'll grind them down, and force the CSA into a few strong points that will take a year of preparation to conquer.

Expecting the AI to play as well as a human could is something I will reasonably demand from Matrix when I retire in 20 years.

What is it you play that meets your expectations? I want that list!

Best,

Mr. Yuck



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/17/2009 4:13:05 AM)

So close, yet so far.

Captain Difficulty, no power bonus to the CSA, exact same settings shown above. Through this last turn, it was going so well. The AI was fortifying in the west (new level 1 forts in Memphis, Knoxville, and Abingdon). He even attacked me in Nashville with about 60,000 men(after I had built a fort of course, so he lost). The AI kept kicking me out of Fredericksburg, then leaving it, so I had destroyed two of the three forts, but hey, he was doing well.

Then, out of the blue, he moved every western container to Abingdon. That's 101,000 men from the west and (strangely he was keeping some divisions in weird places) from the south. Maybe this won't come to anything. Maybe some will come back. But I will tell you, I've seen this a hundred times on 1st Sergeant and I don't think those brigades are coming back.

I'm going to bed, but I will keep playing this game and update with the usual 4 screenshots tomorrow. But consider this a preview of things to come.

1st screenshot, the depressing Army Overview screen. Note that there are TWO army containers in Abingdon and Nashville. No armies have been killed.





[image]local://upfiles/31707/AC3878C99CBA4F08B859A4E703F33AE0.jpg[/image]



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/17/2009 4:14:55 AM)

2nd and final shot for tonight. A view of Richmond, Abingdon, and Fredericksburg. Re-emphasis that this is Captain Difficulty level.

The Army of the Potomc consists of 80,000 men under McClellan in Fredericksburg and another 40,000 under Meade in Annapolis. Why on Earth do 136,000 CSA men consider that a threat; a threat requiring 101,000 reinforcements from the west!? No one else ever sees this? I'm just stupefied that I'm whistling in the wind here; I see this all the time and now I'm seeing it on Captain, in mid-1862!



[image]local://upfiles/31707/7C4737CFE32942D6A29D88C8745A3E41.jpg[/image]



Erik Rutins -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/17/2009 2:35:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
Options attached. I have played with governors extensively. I turned them off because of the brigade request which tends to make a lot of governors bitter enemies by the endgame when it is just ridiculous to keep 20 brigades in states like Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa.

Also, Erik, thank you for your reply. Your response is the most heartening I've got, even if it comes to nothing. Even just to hear the word "turtling" is refreshing.


Aha, well this screenshot told me a lot. First, and I know not everyone agrees with me, but I'm the one giving the advice in this post... [;)] your choice of Scenario. I strongly advise against the Standard Campaign if you want the most historical results. Instead, play the Coming Fury (July 1861 Historical) scenario. I have to check back on my preferred settings, I'll post a screenshot of them later today or tomorrow depending on my schedule, but I'd be interested in the results you get when you try those.

Regards,

- Erik



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/18/2009 4:08:28 PM)

What ANV-size are other players seeing that they don't consider it Richmond-packing?

Are other players not seeing ANVs in excess of 100,000 men routinely?

I didn't play much yesterday, but I'm outnumbered in the east and the brigades just keep flowing.  While he hasn't abandoned the west by the end of 1862, I certainly have a 2-1 advantage or more at the moment, while in the east it's something like 130,000 Rebels facing 120,000 Federals in two armies.

Oh, Captain is no fun.  I'm not sure how Union players tolerate these absurdly lopsided casualties because of the AI's combat bonus being combined with the CSA's superior quality (plus the slant towards defense in this game).  Not every battle was Fredericksburg (in fact, Fredericksburg happened only once; even in Lee's other decisive victories, the casualtes were never 3-1 or more in favor of the CSA).



cesteman -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/18/2009 7:52:22 PM)

speaking of settings I am getting Gov's asking for brigades in Maine! Now how stupid is that? That is one option I'd love to turn off.



janh -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/18/2009 9:18:08 PM)

Hi everyone,
I hate to make any statement given such a heated debate already.  jsc991 seems to be expecting what I did when I bought the game -- a simulation.  I was hoping for something that would be quite detailed, sort of like WITP (War in the Pacific, or even WITP-AE) is to older (or this other hex-based) Pacific strategy games.  But I learned that FOF is more a game, intended to be enjoyed.  There is not much micromanaging (like assigning Brigade leader, which would have been cool to get more of a personal relationship to the armies you build up and lead into the fight), which means you can play it pretty easily and a game is quite fast. 

However, some things I liked a lot, like the economy part or the maps are very nice (I played the last patch before the April one, FYI).  Other things I missed: BG leader assignments, smaller provinces (counties!) on the strategic map so you and move your army in different columns to your target (like shenandoah east and west forks routes, for instance).  Or have smaller provinces in general (Fredericksburg split in FB, Wilderness, Gordonsville, Centreville etc).  Also the detailed battle maps could be nicer, have a more realistic road pattern and other strategic features that AI would consider more in forming its lines; or some historic maps for certain provinces. 
Also I found that AI in detailed battle didn't seem to keep units of division somehow formed, but mixed brigades of different formations (sure historically that happened too, but in most cases brigades of a division stayed at least somewhat together).  One thing that annoyed me a bit about detailed combat was the minimum unit size, below which they rout.  Many BG's historically were small in battles, like 500-800 men units seens for instance for Lees tired army at Antietam. 
Also, artillery but in a few cases historically was concentrated into formations of 3000 men (see Alexander at GB). Initially most artillery was brigade artillery, but the Confed (initially Lee) reorganized it in 1862 into battalions of ca 300 men and 20-30 guns, which then were employed battery wise. The Union later did the same, and BG artillery was not so common afterwards anymore.  These heavy 3000 men artillery BGs did way to much effect in concentration of fire and damage than in history I felt (quite a few battle against a nurmerically far superior AI I won by having concentrated all my economy on building ART and getting the indirect fire attribute -- I kept shifting those 10-15 parrott and 24p howitzer BGs by train forth and back east and west; if you look at historical sources, artillery unless using canister at close range, created more noise than casualties, contrary to what many people want to believe. Just read up, Official Records of the War of Rebellion is a really good source and available at the Library of Congress)! 
However, I fixed both the BG issues with a Hex editor, and found the 3 or 4 places that I needed to lower the thresholds.  That worked will with detailed combat, and I could have a reasonable artillery battalion for each div and one for corps reserve.  However, AI never managed to organize so many arty units and organize the containers properly -- was probably just not designed to do this.  Would be nice if that could be added as an option in the next patch.

The strategic AI of the game seemed to be quite sound to me, but surely not capable of defeating a human without bonuses.   Well, that is the sad story for most games though -- guess AI is the thing potential customers least see -- fancy graphics, maps, millions of weapons and stuff seem to sell these days.   Though I like Take Command 2 Manassas a lot with its detail, historic realism and reasonably good AI, it seems also the next part, Gettysburg will be "just another map" (sorry for the sidetrack) -- like Arma and Arma 2 will be for me to Operation Flashpoint.  Maybe one day I will buy another game of these series -- maybe Arma 13 and TC12.

Anyway, before I made my small hex mods, I usually played CSA and the Union AI would give me some good times.  I didn't like to give it unrealistic advantages in the detailed combat, but economic bonuses were ok for me - after all, I wanted to have some realism left.   One thing that annoyed me was that I tried to style my ANV along the lines of the historic OOBs, and that meant something like 50+ BGs in 10 divisions or so (yeah, I did change the max limits for the containers).  Yeah, huge, but I didn't replenish many BGs so altogther it were usually some 7-80000 men.  I kept them split up, protecting WV, Shenandoah, Fredericksburg, the Peninsula and Norfolk, typically.  Only in case of imminent battle or offensive I concentrated.  
Although I did something similar in the West, having also there historic troop strengths (~100.000 men across from far West, Tennessee, and the South), by mid/end 1862 AI tended to send its large formations to the East, accumulating often more than 300.000 men in W. DC. and PA.  I tuned around the parameters that can be modded (there must be a thread somewhere that MM guys gave me a hint on how AI computes its behavior), but it didn't help too much. 
Maybe AI was confused by my many, though small BGs in Virgina area. That that got worse after modding the BG limits, and tuning down the camp production rate, is probably not surprising and surely my issue.  Well, anyway, I not always saw this.

Sometimes AI did pretty well in the West, particulary if its armies in the east stayed idle and didn't loose too many times against me.  AI seemed to concentrate in the east if he lost several major battles there, or if he bled down his forces in the West.   I guess Strategic AI could be tuned down a little more to be less agressive and focus a bit more on defending its own cities, which I felt it wasn't paying too much attention to in the West.   Maybe that would help.

Now don't get the impression that I didn't like this game: I got many fun hours out of this game, and can say it is pretty nice.  I still play it once in a while, and would suggest everyone who doesn't absolute require the historical realism and detail of a WITP-AE or TC2M to buy it.   But hope for a FOF2 that will adress some things I would hope for and turn this game more into a historic simulation.  Maybe, maybe not.
Best regards,
Jan














jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/18/2009 10:05:49 PM)

This idea I want a simulation is Gil R's invention. Asking that a Civil War game feature a western front is hardly asking for a historical simulation. The only major change this game needs in its current form is to tone down the AI's love of Richmond.  I could have a great deal of fun with it on the difficulty level I want to play (1st Sergeant) if the AI consistently kept 60,000 men in the west outside of garrisons and kept the ANV to a reasonable 80k-100k.  That isn't asking too much, despite what people have said in this thread.

Captain is no help to this problem.  It just makes the game harder and less fun, which wasn't my goal.  I'll post some screenshots prooving that the AI's contempt for the west survives above 1st Sergeant, but who really cares.  I'm totally beaten down by this issue and the response here. It doesn't seem there's anything that can be done about it.



Erik Rutins -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/18/2009 10:20:44 PM)

Have you tried the scenario I recommended yet?



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/18/2009 11:16:01 PM)

No, but I will. I'm just depressed by the captain experience.

Edit: Good god! The Union economy in the July 1861 scenario is enormous! Will this really produce a better game?



Gil R. -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/19/2009 5:09:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
This idea I want a simulation is Gil R's invention. Asking that a Civil War game feature a western front is hardly asking for a historical simulation.



I inferred this from your reluctance to give the AI economic boosts at higher levels, forcing both sides to fight with their "historical" economic production. A simulation should stick as close to history at all times, while a game can mess with history a bit more, as is done if one boosts the CSA's economy in order to create a greater challenge.

As for scenarios, Erik may well be right that July is better suited for what you want. I recommended the November scenario because the CSA has more forces out west, and therefore would be more likely to leave some there. But July may be the way to go.



Gil R. -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/19/2009 5:11:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

No, but I will. I'm just depressed by the captain experience.

Edit: Good god! The Union economy in the July 1861 scenario is enormous! Will this really produce a better game?


Which July scenario is this? You'd want the one with the more evenly balanced economy. (Remember: Both the balanced and imbalanced economies are based on historical data, but in one whenever there was uncertainty about these data we went with all the numbers that favor the Union and in the other the CSA. So both are historical, despite being sharply different.)



Erik Rutins -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/19/2009 9:55:08 PM)

I've had good luck with the Coming Fury (Historical) scenario, give it a try. Trying the November Historical scenario is probably also worthwhile, but it's the July (Historical) scenario that I have the most experience with against the AI, at least through 1.10.10.



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/19/2009 10:39:41 PM)

I will finish my current Standard Campaign Captain game so I have at least one full record of the AI abandoning on the west on Captain (rebutting some of what has been alleged). Then I'll give up on trying to make the game better and try to see if I can at least make it playable.



Mr. Yuck -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/20/2009 12:11:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Have you tried the scenario I recommended yet?


What settings do you use, Erik?



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/20/2009 5:18:08 AM)

This problem exists on higher difficulty levels. I honestly have no theories. I'm willing to send anyone this savegame who would like to investigate. You can see the start of the migration above. He had me outnumbered in the East and moved 101,000 men from the west.

Here is the finished migration. All three Southern army containers are in the East. One is totally empty. There are 165,000 men in Richmond and more in Fredericksburg. This shift was so dramatic, I actually had to drift Buell's corps back because I was worried he might actually attack Washington (laughable, he retreats to Richmond every time).

I would love to hear someone's explanation for this. There are 165,000 men in Richmond! The game isn't even remotely over or decided. My western armies are a bit shot up because of the high cost of sieges in Memphis (and there are still two forts in Memphis, the fort in Murfreesboro, plus new forts in Sparta, Knoxville, and Chattanooga). I'm still stunned people doubted this was happening on higher difficulties.

Captain Difficulty, Standard Scenario, Options as my screenshot above.

1st shot, the army overview.



[image]local://upfiles/31707/015308052E9548B296723693EBE272AF.jpg[/image]



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/20/2009 5:18:56 AM)

2nd shot, manpower. He's falling a bit behind, but if you add up field armies, it's really close.



[image]local://upfiles/31707/51F74F54AF714E898BD2D34B10A6005A.jpg[/image]



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/20/2009 5:19:46 AM)

And Richmond. I want to say a lot (there's a bit of bitterness in me right now because of all the assurances I received that this was a 1st Sergeant problem), but I'll let these shots speak for themselves.



[image]local://upfiles/31707/E5C4DD0FD18641CFAB0C288E80372784.jpg[/image]



terje439 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/20/2009 6:24:26 AM)

Looking at your settings, I came to realise that you use "more generals". It seems to me that this allows for even more rallies in QC, so have you tried with fewer generals?

Just a thought.

Terje



jscott991 -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/20/2009 2:32:01 PM)

Yes, I've tried with fewer generals quite a few times. More generals really only gives you a lot of 1 stars for brigades.

The massive numbers of rallies in QC usually come from your higher up generals (Grant, McClellan, Sherman, and corps commanders in particular). I'm sure more generals causes another really here or there, but based on QC reports, I don't think it is really increasing the rallies. Also in the game above, there were no big battles in the east. The biggest battles occurred out west, and even they weren't as big as my 1st Sergeant Fredericksburg battles.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25