Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/20/2007 5:55:34 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

AI Plundering:

I'm playing the South. Once the AI took Memphis, I expected it to move against other targets. Instead, it has remained there, plundering what are now its own buildings turn after turn -- letting me run out the clock.

Early on, the AI destroyed a Mansion and reduced my National Will. I do not see a benefit to the Union for it to continue plundering -- a hospital, an arsenal I think, and so on. Maybe it could be told not to plunder cities it has already taken or at least to stop once it has destroyed a mansion.


I was mistaken about the first part. The AI had taken the last fort but not yet taken the city. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether it is in the AI's interest to plunder a city that it will soon own.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 211
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/20/2007 6:10:34 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		Issues from Union AI gameplay:

Playing my second game as the South (with Union +2), I found the Union AI inactive everywhere except West Virginia and Memphis area. Fair enough.

Once the AI took Memphis, I braced myself for further attack, but it just sat there month after month for over a year, even though my nearest troops were in Nasvhille and Jackson, with lots of empty provinces in between (as well as the two western Ky provinces, which I had taken early). Meanwhile, I had an army that had taken most of southern Missouri and part of Kansas and then retreated all the way to Jackson. So all that was undefended.

What appeared to be the Union Army of the Ohio did take Western Virginia, but once I moved an equally large army to Abingdon, that army too became quiet and never stirred again.

With all the inactivity, I stopped building or doing anything except going to end turn, end turn, end turn, to see if the Union AI would ever do anything. Again, many months went by. Nothing happened, except a lone Union brigade wandered into Lee's army in Abingdon.

So I get going end-turn, end-turn, end-turn, and all of a sudden, after all these months, the Army of the Potomac moved into Shenandoah, and the Memphis army started sieging Ft Henry. I could not see what had changed that made them go from both being quiescent to both being nicely aggressive.

I was rushed, since my wife was waiting for me, and had not saved any of these turns, so I can't give a careful report, but I noticed two disturbing things:

First, the Union army besieging Ft Henry was rated "Eng adv: terrible" and "Art adv: terrible." How could the Union AI not have prepared its army for sieges?

Second, the Army of the Potomac was commanded by a two-star general (Reno) accompanied by two one-stars. The Western army was commanded by a one-star general (Doubleday). How could the Union AI not have promoted generals and put them into proper charge?



< Message edited by General Quarters -- 1/20/2007 6:26:10 PM >

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 212
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/20/2007 6:33:15 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		The Virginia theatre:

I was concerned when I first saw the Virginia portion of the map and subsequent gameplay has validated my concern.

In my view, any strategic Civil War game has to make smaller provinces in Virginia than elsewhere. Armies in Virginia as well as the West maneuvered, but they maneuvered over a smaller area.

As the game is now, there are very few viable approaches to Richmond. It is not clear to me that there is more than one: Fredericksburg, which a Union has no chance to conquer before Lee's army shows up. Rappa is a theoretical possibility, but you have to haul the whole army there and then you risk its destruction. Is Shenan a possibility? The only time I tried it and went on to Lynchburg, my supplies started drying up, so it may be beyond the Union supply perimeter. That is probably historical, since there is no railroad down the Shenan.

In short, there is very little manueverability for the Union. There was not a great deal in the real war, but there was some. There were two railraods going south in the "Fredericksburg" region, or the Union army could be supplied from the sea (without risking being driven into it) as Grant did in 64.

In case there comes a time a map change is possible, I would suggest dividing Fred into three provinces, one at the top (Manassas) and then both a southeast and a southwest portion, representing the two railroad approaches. Rappa should be divided into a part that could be approached by land and another (Penin) that required a landing. Shenan should remain one province so that it retains its character as a dagger poised at the heart of the Union.


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 213
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/22/2007 9:32:43 PM   
silber

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Something that I think needs changed is the morale/quality advantage given to the South in the standard scenario. The troop quality of both sides was practically the same for the entire war. The difference was in leadership and I think that's already reflected in the South having better leadership at the start. It was never a case of Southern troops being better fighters than their Northern counterparts. Leadership made the difference.

I would argue the reverse. Southern troop quality was at least as good as Northern, and their overall morale was probably better. They didn't have the short-term enlistments and drafts, and Southern units seem to show great resiliancy on campaign (suffering less attrition and desertion.) On the battlefield, there probably isn't quite as much difference, but Southern units should probably reflect the greater unit cohesion within their regiments. (The South raised new regiments rather then reinforce the old ones, this led to small, but veteran units. The North replaced losses, which led to larger, but less experienced regiments. Southern Brigades might be larger, but that is due to having a lot more regiments.)

In practice, Southern troops were very often ill-shod, ill-clothed, ill-equipped, and on the borderline of starvation, so their actual utility on the battlefield might not be better than that of Union troops, especially by 1864.

As to leadership, I think that this is one of the great myths of the Civil War. The South certainly had some great leaders, but they also had some reall doofuses, many of them commanding armies in the field. Joseph Johnston, who never won a major campaign, Braxton Bragg, who lost a few, and my favorite, John Bell Hood, who lost two armies due to over-aggressiveness. I think that the "second-tier" of Confederate generals was far inferior to the second-tier of Union Generals, particularly by 1864 when Sheridan, George Thomas, and Sherman had all been given Army-level commands.

(in reply to tevans6220)
Post #: 214
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/22/2007 10:29:28 PM   
silber

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline 		Oops, got things turned around. It was the North which tended to raise new regiments, rather than the South.

(in reply to silber)
Post #: 215
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/23/2007 2:49:20 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		Gil did you get my email?

And on the subject of camps, I would say cap it at 10k for the south and 5k for the north.   The north built more regiments with its manpower and the south reinforced its excisting ones. 

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 216
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/23/2007 4:46:42 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Gil did you get my email?



No, I didn't. Perhaps try a p.m.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 217
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/23/2007 2:20:23 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		The AI fortifying captured provinces:

I've been playing a quick game as the Confeds against a souped-up Union, just to see what the AI does. It beat Lee in Fredericksburg, quickly reduced the forts, and then moved on to Petersburg. However, it failed to leave units in the forts in Fredricksburg, so Lee was able to immediately retake it. I believe that other times it has left troops in forts in areas it has conquered. It should probably do that every time, automatically.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 218
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/23/2007 5:19:44 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		"As to leadership, I think that this is one of the great myths of the Civil War. The South certainly had some great leaders, but they also had some reall doofuses, many of them commanding armies in the field. Joseph Johnston, who never won a major campaign, Braxton Bragg, who lost a few, and my favorite, John Bell Hood, who lost two armies due to over-aggressiveness. I think that the "second-tier" of Confederate generals was far inferior to the second-tier of Union Generals, particularly by 1864 when Sheridan, George Thomas, and Sherman had all been given Army-level commands. "


I would have to agree with this overall (though "real doofuses" were common on both sides), but I would strongly dissagree with your assessment of Joe Johnston. All of his opponants had real problems and struggles against him..., and while he never "pulled a rabbit out of the hat" in the manner of Robert E. Lee, he never squandered the lives of his troops either. He seems to have been one of the first Confederate leaders to realize that with limited manpower and industry, what the South really needed to "play for" was TIME. He got to 1st Manassis on time to "save the day..., and didn't "get caught" when McClellan finally moved his enormously superior Army of the Potomac there. He got to the Penninsula in time to slow Mac to a "crawl in the mud"..., and when the AoP finally got close to Richmond he hit them at Seven Pines and brought them to a muddled halt again. His subordinates let him down there, but that happened to everyone. And he was realistic and non-egotistical enough to admit that the bullet that hit him at Seven Pines and led to Lee taking command was a good thing all around. No one was going to stop Sherman from getting to Atlanta eventully, but even Sherman gave Johnston high marks for making it a long slow and costly slog. And Johnston got there with an army intact and ready to fight---which Hood squandered and destroyed during his tenure. Lee, Grant, and Sherman respected him and his abilities as an Army Commander.., that's good enough endorsement in any book.

(in reply to silber)
Post #: 219
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/23/2007 5:59:06 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

John Bell Hood, who lost two armies due to over-aggressiveness


What army did Hood lose besides the Army of Tennessee?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 220
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/24/2007 11:25:48 PM   
megalomania2003

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Given the number of posts, and the different opinions in those posts is it possible to see a list of changes in the new patch (from a developer)?

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 221
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 4:48:33 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

AI Plundering:

I'm playing the South. Once the AI took Memphis, I expected it to move against other targets. Instead, it has remained there, plundering what are now its own buildings turn after turn -- letting me run out the clock.

Early on, the AI destroyed a Mansion and reduced my National Will. I do not see a benefit to the Union for it to continue plundering -- a hospital, an arsenal I think, and so on. Maybe it could be told not to plunder cities it has already taken or at least to stop once it has destroyed a mansion.


I was mistaken about the first part. The AI had taken the last fort but not yet taken the city. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether it is in the AI's interest to plunder a city that it will soon own.


Perhaps there is method to this madness. The Union took Richmond. I managed to retake it -- but is was not the same city. Previously chock full of productive buildings (including a valuable foundry and my own manufacturing center), most were now just smoldering ashes. The Union did not try to retake it. Maybe it wasn't worth it anymore.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 222
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 2:10:11 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
What's the point of basing the game on a historical era if the game itself is not going to be 100% historical?


Oh dear god, and here we see the disadvantage of publishing a game with Matrix... is this comment facetious or something? Of all the games out there based on a historical era, from Day of Defeat to War in the Pacific, how many are 100% historical? I would wager zero, myself, even those (few) where accuracy is the paramount goal.

If it was 100% historical than the CSA should lose every time, because, well, lets be honest, its a miracle they survived as long as they did, and they certainly had zero chance of victory short of European intervention - which both North and South themselves seemed to have realised. (and with the whole cotton/grain situation in the British Empire, the CSA leaders apparently grossly overestimated their chances in the diplomatic game as well). Maybe you'd be interested in a game as rigged as history had it, but I'm not.



That aside, I did kinda expect the Union to have the better economy in game, especially as the South have their ubergenerals and extra big brigades. So... my 2p :-


a) I do think the North's economic power needs to be upped. I've not noticed the North being hugely more able than the South in terms of industrial ability, aside from the South's iron shortage in the early war. Rather than tweaking anything in terms of price, may I suggest simply giving the North some more mansions? This would give the North more free building slots to be exploited, and, it seems to me, may simulate to some degree a large economy that needs to take a year out to gear up for war before it really starts roaring. It would also solve any camp issues, too, as the Northern player, if he so chose, could use that spare space to build horse farms. More space would give the player flexibility to do whatever they wanted, and hopefully shoot down a lot of the gripes here (eg, not enough railroad capacity, admittedly not an issue I noticed myself, all you need is iron after all). It's a nice, generic, all purpose upsizing of the Northern economy.

ATM it seems the main Northern economic benny thats been given to them is all those iron works they have scattered around the place, while the CSA doesn't even have one - but really, most of those yankee ironworks are superfluous, you only need, at most, 2, with a lot of mines concentrated there.

b) I wouldn't touch the south's economy myself, just make the north stronger, on the grounds that if you keep one fairly steady you'll be better able to tweak the balance than if you were toying with both sides at once.

...That said I'd cut down the research bonuses from Europe, they seem to be enormous - 70 plus research points every other turn sometimes - in almost every game I've played against the AI the CSA has been waaaay ahead of me technologically purely on the back of Europe.

_____________________________


(in reply to tevans6220)
Post #: 223
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 2:14:57 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
Perhaps there is method to this madness. The Union took Richmond. I managed to retake it -- but is was not the same city. Previously chock full of productive buildings (including a valuable foundry and my own manufacturing center), most were now just smoldering ashes. The Union did not try to retake it. Maybe it wasn't worth it anymore.


I see the Sherman approach to war has been coded...

_____________________________


(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 224
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 2:16:26 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		Oh, and as an aside, I don't know the mechanics well enough to answer this myself - but is there a disadvantage to running lots of camps?  You get all these reinforcements, 'for free', in effect.  You don't pay upkeep on camps or anything like that, do you?


_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 225
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 3:00:45 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		duplicate

< Message edited by General Quarters -- 1/25/2007 3:15:46 PM >

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 226
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 3:02:31 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Oh, and as an aside, I don't know the mechanics well enough to answer this myself - but is there a disadvantage to running lots of camps?  You get all these reinforcements, 'for free', in effect.  You don't pay upkeep on camps or anything like that, do you?



I gather that replacements from camps are of lower quality (circa 2.5) than units you build from start (circa 4.0). There has been general agreement that being able to build lots of camps and have 20,000 replacements per turn is excessive and I believe will be addressed in the next patch.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 227
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 8:12:10 PM   
Bombsight


Posts: 45
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		Gil,
I have posted this comment elsewhere; but, this string seems more suitable to what I'm asking. The power factor in set up is capped at +3 for either side. At +3, the North cannot match the production ability that the Norrth actually experienced in the war. How about a mod to allow higher production capability for those of us that prefer a more historical game (not necessarily a simulation; but, a little more historical).

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 228
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 8:48:05 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		Its happening. The next patch being finalised is to include a more historical scenario.

(in reply to Bombsight)
Post #: 229
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/25/2007 9:31:45 PM   
rook749


Posts: 1105
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Its happening. The next patch being finalised is to include a more historical scenario.


Yea.

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 230
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/26/2007 4:34:23 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Its happening. The next patch being finalised is to include a more historical scenario.



Let's hope that means more than leaving out the rediculous Confederate Navy....

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 231
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/26/2007 12:53:35 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		I really must protest again. By some reliable accounts the North had nearly 3 million troops under arms during the war. One can NEVER reach those numbers. Not even close.

This demand to cut camps, at least one wanting to limit the North to half what the South can have, to tie replacements to a miniscule population base as given by the game are simply wrong. While it may be reasonable to limit the number of camps per city, even using the population ( at max) to determine max camps per city. It is not reasonable to demand any arbitrary number be set, except as has been suggested, with a toggle to allow the player to build his own camps. Nor is it reasonable to tie replacements in any manner to a system of removing population UNLESS said population is going to actually reflect the reality of what troops actually were raised during the war.

Even then , why would that be appropriate? People keep insisting they dont want to be tied to only what happened in the war. Provide the accurate manpower bases with adequate regrowth per year and then at the level of historical numbers penalize the person that strips more manpower out for increased troop strength.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 232
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/26/2007 8:12:27 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		Just to give an idea of weapons smuggled into the south.

400,000 to 700,000 Enfields "reports vary"
100,000 Austrian Model 1854 rifles

Those are the big ones.   So over half of all weapons used by the south were smuggled in, probably another good chunk were captured early on.

The Confederacy MADE

Richmond Armory

Richmond Va.
C.S. Model 1861 Type I , Type 2 & Type 3
No. Produced : Approx. 15,000

Palmetto Armory

Columbia SC.
SC. Model 1842 alteration from smoothbore to .69 cal rifled musket
No. Produced : 3,720

Cooks and Brothers Armory New Orleans LA

Enfield rifled under contract with England
No. Produced :3800 to 4000


Fayetteville Arsenal, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Produced/converted about 10,000 Rifles.
Using captured parts and machinery from Harpers Ferry.


For all practical purposes the Confederacy smuggled or captured over 90% of all of its rifles.


Purpose of this post, smuggling was the life line of the Confederacy and should reflect it.
edited for my spelling heh.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/27/2007 12:56:12 AM >

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 233
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 12:07:15 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		However the South never was ahead of the North in any meaningful way on any facite of the war, yet as it runs now the South can recieve a tech increase every other turn if lucky because of the "free" gifts from Europe.

I still suggest that a cap should exsist on research grants from all european sources to the Confederacy. I would suggest never exceed 25 points in a turn and never exceed 100 in 6 turns,

As has been pointed out I have seen grants of 70 points a turn repeated 2 or 3 out of maybe 6 turns.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 234
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 12:43:31 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		Ive seen that, just tie it to the difficulty rating.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 235
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 12:48:08 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

However the South never was ahead of the North in any meaningful way on any facite of the war, yet as it runs now the South can recieve a tech increase every other turn if lucky because of the "free" gifts from Europe.


I would caveat this by pointing out that if they were "never ahead on any facet of the war" theres no point playing the game, unless its WITP-like where you can lose the war, and yet still win the game.

That said I was expecting the North to outstrip the CSA pretty heavily economically, and that simply doesn't seem to be the case. The CSA economy is smaller, but only a bit smaller (what is it, 50-75% of the size of the Union economy I would guess?), and the blockade running and European gifts make it really the equal of the North almost. I would say.

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 236
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 12:51:21 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		Id rather have a cap on camps then reduce the horses. And whatever the cap is decided the North needs to be half that of the south. Historicly the South reinforced units, and the North just let the regiments get smaller and smaller.


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 237
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 12:52:13 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		What they need to do instead of increasing the Econemy of the South, which wasnt easy, to increasing the value of the blockade runners.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 238
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 1:16:10 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Id rather have a cap on camps then reduce the horses. And whatever the cap is decided the North needs to be half that of the south. Historicly the South reinforced units, and the North just let the regiments get smaller and smaller.



The north reinforced regiments too. Thay had the manpower to do both, unlike the south

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 239
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 2:38:41 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Id rather have a cap on camps then reduce the horses. And whatever the cap is decided the North needs to be half that of the south. Historicly the South reinforced units, and the North just let the regiments get smaller and smaller.



...thats just going to make the CSA even better IMO, unless the number of camps is really too small to refit your army (I think 10,000 troops a turn is a lot, myself, and you dont need a lot of camps to manage that).

You can't keep raising new brigades in this game, your population goes down if you do that, so the 'Northern' way of keeping troops in the field simply isn't viable. The South would be reinforcing their fewer brigades with camps for free, while the North would be destroying their economy and simultaneously blowing through vast amounts of cash and labour by raising fresh brigades all the time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.047