|
Gil R. -> RE: The AI CSA in the West (6/22/2009 4:53:51 AM)
|
Janh,
I meant to respond, but forgot. See below.
quote:
ORIGINAL: janh
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.
Being able to assign brigade commanders permanently is at the top of our list of things we would like to do if there's a FOF expansion. Not an easy change to code, which is why we haven't done it for a patch, but we do think it would be a great addition.
I also agree that, ideally, we would redo the map at some points if we were to come out with a new and improved FOF. And if we did that, reworking some of the Virginia provinces would be number one on the list. Having smaller provinces overall, though, would not be something we'd want to do, since that would completely change the game and require massive amount of new programming and testing.
Historic maps for provinces is something suggested before. It would certainly be a great addition, though not an easy one. We're keeping the idea in mind, though.
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.
Possibly things we'll change at some point. Personally, I'd rather see the routing occur when a percentage of men are lost rather than a fixed minimum being reached. Unfortunately, I only reached this opinion long after the game had been released!
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)!
Since the game is at the brigade-level we decided to go with artillery brigades, even though that's not how things were done, especially at the beginning of the war. In retrospect, it would have been better to limit all artillery units and require an "Artillery Brigade" upgrade that would enable them to grow in size and firepower. But this is an idea we had long after release.
As for ranges, you're right that less damage was done, but guns firing at a distance could still have a major effect on the battle. Or just the fear of them could, since for example Little Round Top's value was largely its usefulness for placing artillery where it could bombard troops as far as a mile away.
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.
I'm not sure just what you're asking for.
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
Thanks for all your feedback. We definitely would like to do a FOF expansion, though I don't see starting work on it in the coming months. (We have multiple still-secret projects that are top priorities at the moment.) But if we do one, at least some of the changes you'd like to see should be in there.
|
|
|
|
