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: Coming Fury Scenario Comments

 
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 >> Public Beta Feedback >> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/25/2007 10:30:13 PM   
sadja

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
May be to get the forum back on track.

I know that there has been a lot of bitching about gov, camps and such. I was one of them. I am bias and I like to play the Rebels.

That said I think this game has tried to capture many of the strategic problems that faced the South.

1. Manpower: The south was always having trouble with manpower and was mostly had less troops on the field than the north. Many brigades were low strength and sometimes were not much more than equal to a couple offull strengh companies. I think the camps are OK but I would like to see the recuitment cost of new brigades be cheeper and come in at about 70% strength. If you have more brigades then the camp reinforcements will have more to spread around. I would like to see the reinforcements to be spread out more. If a brigade is eligible for 400 may be it should only get half that.

A player will have to do a little more force conservation in battles if it can. If it had earlier in the war it might have had a bigger effect on the north. When the south went into the defensive mode after gettysburge the north paid dearly in causlities.

Gov. I think this part captures the real proble of the South. The most important thing a goverment can have in war is a strong central goverment. This is the main reason the south secceded. It believed in states rights. The orginal goverment of the US was only an articals of confederation and the constitution went way beyond the the tweaking that was suppose to be done to the articals.

The governers requests and impressment risks show how hard the Central gov had with dealing with the war. It was never total war with the South. Early on half the blockade runners cargoes were non military support cargos. The navies on the river had State gunboats, army gunboats and navy gunboats.

That all said I think some adjustments to the request can be made. The huge 200 money requsts just will not be honored.
Some of the prices should be lowered or revenue from non cities could be raised. I don't for sure want be some balance can be done without resorting to higher economies or population.

Please excuse all the miss spelling, it is a bad subject for me and I do this posts as a stream of conscience.

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to gunnergoz)
Post #: 31
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/25/2007 10:49:17 PM   
sadja

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
More comments

I believe all level 3 forts should start with artillery. They don't have to be big and if a player wants to upgrade they can. You can also put understrength garrisons in all forts.

Impressments unrest. I don't have a problem with unrest when impressments, but only if they are sucessful. So far when I get the unrest the rioters only have destroyed mansion, capitols, or plantations. is there a destuction que on what gets broken first? The unrest cuts off production and income, I beleive this is enough with a very small chance of destroying the infrastructure. The unrest shows destruction of the infrastructer by not producing income. income that would have been garnered has used repair some of the stuff that was broke durring the riots. Even the ugly draft riots in NY they didn't burn down city hall and stopped income for 6 months.

these are all my comments so far, except I love this game and learning how to play it with in the rules of the GAME. I capitolized the game part because that it what it is. Sometimes when we lose we blame the game for not working like it should instead of may be we were the problem with bad choices. We sometimes we think we are napoleons when were really Santa Anna.

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to sadja)
Post #: 32
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/25/2007 10:50:24 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		Do you mean 70% of their maximum strength or 70% of the strength at which they enter the game now?




_____________________________



(in reply to sadja)
Post #: 33
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/25/2007 11:00:54 PM   
sadja

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline 		of what they enter now

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 34
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/26/2007 5:39:15 PM   
Jaypea

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sadja


More comments

I believe all level 3 forts should start with artillery. They don't have to be big and if a player wants to upgrade they can. You can also put understrength garrisons in all forts.

Impressments unrest. I don't have a problem with unrest when impressments, but only if they are sucessful. So far when I get the unrest the rioters only have destroyed mansion, capitols, or plantations. is there a destuction que on what gets broken first? The unrest cuts off production and income, I beleive this is enough with a very small chance of destroying the infrastructure. The unrest shows destruction of the infrastructer by not producing income. income that would have been garnered has used repair some of the stuff that was broke durring the riots. Even the ugly draft riots in NY they didn't burn down city hall and stopped income for 6 months.

these are all my comments so far, except I love this game and learning how to play it with in the rules of the GAME. I capitolized the game part because that it what it is. Sometimes when we lose we blame the game for not working like it should instead of may be we were the problem with bad choices. We sometimes we think we are napoleons when were really Santa Anna.


I agree 100% with the above in bold! Great idea but maybe for level 2 & level 3 forts!

Jaypea


< Message edited by Jaypea -- 3/26/2007 5:40:36 PM >

(in reply to sadja)
Post #: 35
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/26/2007 7:42:48 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline 		I just stopped playing this scenario as CSA around late 1863 and I can give following feedback =

set up = advanced buildings, +1 CSA power, first lt. difficulty. On this setting, prior to the patch, I won the game very easely. Now, the story is different.

overall impression = the Union kicked my butt - first I held them off, but from middle 1862 I was on the defense. And early 1863, the Union toppled me from my defenses in both Virginia and Tenessee. With the fact that Kentucky joined my cause, I must say the setup is pretty hard ! I played at +1 power for the CSA.

As CSA I was able to crank my replacements from camps up to 4500-5000 in 1862 - but a few months later this number had fell down to 3000 and 2500. That's a very low figure and I think it's related to the amount of cities I lost by then. But might also be related to the amount of pops I had used up trough musters and constriptions.

The Union troop numbers were pretty high imho, when the Union invaded Virginia early 1862 - they came with about 200.000-250.000 troops in total - that were 3 army containers. I leave this up to the Americans to decide.

The Union AI is pretty good - it played with me.

Very annoying is the absence of enough barracks in Richmond to build army containers. I must say I was never able to build any army container during the entire war. Later on it seems Jackson (not that big city) has already enough barracks to build corps containers from the start on. Why not Richmond, that's the capital !?!

Also very annoying is that no generals were killed ever - IIRC not one of my generals was killed ever. I don't recall of ever having killed an enemy general (do you get feedback on this ?) and I invested heavely in sharpshooters. But no Union generals killed.

Somthing that bothered me was that Grant was commanding one of the Union armies invading Virginia early 1862.

overall impression = very good. Keep up the good work.

< Message edited by spruce -- 3/26/2007 7:49:46 PM >

(in reply to Jaypea)
Post #: 36
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/26/2007 9:26:00 PM   
Gil R.


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

Very annoying is the absence of enough barracks in Richmond to build army containers. I must say I was never able to build any army container during the entire war. Later on it seems Jackson (not that big city) has already enough barracks to build corps containers from the start on. Why not Richmond, that's the capital !?!

Also very annoying is that no generals were killed ever - IIRC not one of my generals was killed ever. I don't recall of ever having killed an enemy general (do you get feedback on this ?) and I invested heavely in sharpshooters. But no Union generals killed.



Regarding barracks, I added that second barracks to Jackson for this patch because I found it irksome and unfair that the CSA player couldn't put its western divisions into a single command, whereas the Union out west starts with army containers. I chose Jackson because it was far enough from the border that it wouldn't fall to the Union right away. What do others think about giving Richmond one or two more barracks?

As for generals, this is something we've been looking at since before releasing this beta patch. Eric has tweaked upwards the chances of generals dying, but perhaps not high enough. This is one of the things we wanted to solicit input on after people had been playing for a while, so I'm glad you brought this up. Would I be right to assume you were playing mostly quick combat? Because that's where we probably do need to increase the odds further.

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 37
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/26/2007 10:03:22 PM   
sadja

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
I have killed a few gen on the union I sometimes move my gen(the really good ones before I do a charge attack) I lost Van dorn last night to a fire attack, I also lost 350 in that 1 attack.

< Message edited by sadja -- 3/26/2007 10:04:02 PM >

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 38
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/26/2007 10:16:48 PM   
Alex Gilbert

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 9/20/2002
From: New York City
Status: offline 		I think that even on regular general settings, there are enough generals that we can afford to lose a few more.  It hurts to lose the good ones, but overcoming and adapting to these problems is what makes the game interesting.  And I am almost always playing with Quick/Instant battles. 


(in reply to sadja)
Post #: 39
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/26/2007 10:20:37 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		That's what I thought -- it's in QC that they don't seem to be dying enough. Shouldn't be too hard to increase the odds, with 1-stars dying most often, 2-stars less often, and 3-stars rarely.

(in reply to Alex Gilbert)
Post #: 40
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/26/2007 10:44:02 PM   
pzpat

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: California
Status: offline 		(In response to Gil.R.)
    Speaking of Jackson and barracks, I set Jackson to build a corps container and on the same turn mustered.  Jackson went into 3 turns of unrest.  When it came out it showed corps - 4.  The next turn it showed corps - 5, and still hasn't built anything. Is this a glitch or will it straighten out?  Can't send anything because the computer isn't hooked up to the internet yet.   

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 41
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 12:23:34 AM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		Strange!  I'll take a look at that.

_____________________________



(in reply to pzpat)
Post #: 42
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 2:26:09 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline 		question = do you see when you kill an enemy general in the event rapport. I play instant battles and quick battles most of the time ?

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 43
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 4:03:34 PM   
sadja

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

question = do you see when you kill an enemy general in the event rapport. I play instant battles and quick battles most of the time ?


Yes,

I managed to kill both Grant and Meade in my last battle. Grant got caught in a fight with a fresh high quality unit which caused 500+ casualties and Meade was killed by a unit that had sharpshooter atribute with enfields. They were shown on event report.

For quick battles I would suggest that in the battle reports on the stategic menu show not only how many losses and weapons lost ect. that it also show the generals killed. That way quick combat can show generals killed. It already shows generals captured in HW

Does the loss of a general effect the morale of either side? Sometimes it can encourage or discourage either side.

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 44
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 4:14:28 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline 		I played quite a few games of FOF during the last days and I must say I only lost one of the Hill generals. And not one Union guy was killed.

I play 75% of my battles on instant battle and 20% on quick battle and 5% on detailed battle ...

how do you kill a general - by unleashing some gigantic meteor on top of his head ? Is this option disabled when played instant battle ?

(in reply to sadja)
Post #: 45
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 4:42:05 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		We seem to have a wide range of opinion on how frequently generals should be killed in quick battle / instant battle.  High ranking generals cannot be killed in quick combat: 4*/5* are completely immune.  Generals are "hit" in quick battle when the attacker gets a modified 10 on the attack, the defender gets a modified 1, and a 15% check is made.  A "hit" general below 4-stars has only 5/16 chance of being killed outright, is otherwise only wounded.

We are considering a change that would make 1*/2* more mortal than the current system allows for.

Many generals were killed in action during the Civil War -- probably not by meteors.  This list I have courtesy of civilwarhome.com is:


ARMY COMMANDERS
General Albert Sydney Johnston Killed at Shiloh.
CORPS COMMANDERS
Lieutenant-General Thomas J. Jackson Killed at Chancellorsville.
Lieutenant-General Leonidas Polk , Killed at  Pine Mountain.
Lieutenant-General Ambrose P. Hill, Killed at Fall of Petersburg.
DIVISION COMMANDERS
Major-General William D. Pender Killed at Gettysburg.
Major-General J. E. B. Stewart, Killed at Yellow Tavern.
Major-General W. H. Walker, Killed at Atlanta.
Major-General Robert E. Rodes, Killed at Opequon.
Major-General Stephen D. Ramseur, Killed at Cedar Creek.
Major-General Patrick R. Cleburne, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General John Pegram, Killed at Hatcher's Run.
BRIGADE COMMANDERS
Brigadier-General Robert S. Garnett Killed at  Cheat Mountain.
Brigadier-General Barnard E. Bee, Killed at  First Bull Run.
Brigadier-General Francis S. Bartow, Killed at  First Bull Run.
Brigadier-General Felix K. Zollicoffer, Killed at  Mill Springs.
Brigadier-General Ben. McCulloch, Killed at  Pea Ridge.
Brigadier-General James Mcintosh, Killed at  Pea Ridge
Brigadier-General William Y. Slack, Killed at  Pea Ridge.
Brigadier-General Adley H. Gladden, Killed at  Shiloh.
Brigadier-General Robert Hatton, Killed at  Fair Oaks.
Brigadier-General Turner Ashby, Killed at  Harrisonburg.
Brigadier-General Richard Griffith, Killed at  Savage Station.
Brigadier-General Charles S. Winder, Killed at  Cedar Mountain.
Brigadier-General Samuel Garland, Jr, Killed at  South Mountain.
Brigadier-General George B. Anderson, Killed at Antietam.
Brigadier-General L. O'B. Branch, Killed at Antietam.
Brigadier-General William E. Starke, Killed at Antietam.
Brigadier-General Henry Little, Killed at Iuka.
Brigadier-General Thomas R. Cobb, Killed at Fredericksburg.
Brigadier-General Maxcy Gregg, Killed at Fredericksburg.
Brigadier-General James E. Rains, Killed at Stone's River.
Brigadier-General Roger W. Hanson, Killed at Stone's River.
Brigadier-General E. D. Tracy, Killed at Port Gibson.
Brigadier-General E. F. Paxton, Killed at Chancellorsville.
Brigadier-General Lloyd Tilghman, Killed at Champion's Hill.
Brigadier-General Martin E. Green, Killed at Vicksburg.
Brigadier-General William Barksdale, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General Lewis Armistead, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General Richard B. Garnett, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General Paul J. Semmes, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General J. J. Pettigrew, Killed at Falling Waters.
Brigadier-General Preston Smith , Killed at Chickamauga.
Brigadier-General Benjamin H. Helm, Killed at Chickamauga.
Brigadier-General James Deshler, Killed at Chickamauga.
Brigadier-General Carnot Posey, Killed at Bristoe Station.
Brigadier-General Alfred Mouton, Killed at Sabine Cross Roads.
Brigadier. General Thomas Green, Killed at Pleasant Hill.
Brigadier-General W. R. Scurry, Killed at Jenkins Ferry.
Brigadier-General John M. Jones, Killed at Wilderness.
Brigadier-General Micah Jenkins, Killed at Wilderness.
Brigadier-General L. A. Stafford, Killed at Wilderness.
Brigadier-General Abner Perrin, Killed at Spotsylvania.
Brigadier-General Julius Daniel, Killed at Spotsylvania.
Brigadier-General James B. Gordon, Killed at Yellow Tavern.
Brigadier-General George Doles, Killed at Bethesda Church.
Brigadier-General W. E. Jones, Killed at Piedmont.
Brigadier-General C. H. Stevens, Killed at Peach Tree Creek.
Brigadier-General Samuel Benton, Killed at Ezra Church.
Brigadier-General John R. Chambliss, Jr, Killed at Deep Bottom.
Brigadier-General J. C. Saunders, Killed at Weldon Railroad.
Brigadier-General Robert H. Anderson, Killed at Jonesboro.
Brigadier-General John Morgan, Killed at Greenville, Tenn.
Brigadier-General Archibald C. Godwin, Killed at Opequon.
Brigadier-General John Dunnovant, Killed at Vaughn Road.
Brigadier-General John Gregg " Darbytown Road.
Brigadier-General Stephen Elliott, Jr., Killed at Petersburg.
Brigadier-General Victor J. Girardey, Killed at Petersburg.
Brigadier-General Archibald Gracie, Jr. Killed at Petersb'g Trenches.
Brigadier-General John Adams, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General Oscar F. Strahl, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General S. R. Gist, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General H. B. Granberry, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General James Dearing, Killed at High Bridge.

Killed in Action--(38).
Brig.-General Thomas Williams, killed Aug. 5, 1862, at Battle of Baton Rouge, La.
Brig -General Robert L. McCook, killed Aug. 6, 1862, near Dechard, Tenn., by guerillas.
Brig.-General Henry Bohlen, killed Aug. 22, 1862, at Freeman's Ford, Rappahannock River, Va.
Major-General Philip Kearney, killed Sept. 1, 1862, at Chantilly, Va.
Major-General Isaac I. Stevens, killed Sept. 1, 1862, at Chantilly, Va.
Brig.-General Pleasant A. Hackelman, killed Oct. 3, 1862, at Corinth, Miss.
Brig.-General James S. Jackson, killed Oct. 8, 1862, at Perryville, Ky.
Brig.-General Wm. R. Terrill, killed Oct. 8, 1862, at Perryville, Ky.
Brig.-General Conrad Feger Jackson, killed Dec. 13, 1862, at Fredericksburg, Va.
Brig.-General Joshua W. Sill, killed Dec. 31, 1862, at Stone River, Tenn.
Major-General Hiram G. Berry, killed May 2, 1863, at Chancellorsville, Va.
Major-General John F. Reynolds, killed July 1. 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa.
Brig.-General Stephen W. Weed, killed July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa.
Brevet Major-General S. K. Zook, killed July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa.
Brevet Brig.-General A. Van Horn Ellis, Colonel 124th N. Y. Volunteers, killed July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa.
Brevet Brig.-General Lewis Benedict, Colonel 162d N. Y. Volunteers, killed April 9, 1864, at Port Hudson, La.
Brevet Major-General Alex. Hays, U. S. Volunteers, killed May 5, 1864, at the Wilderness, Va.
Brevet Major-General James S. Wadsworth, U. S. Volunteers, killed May 6, 1864, at the Wilderness, Va.
Major-General John Sedgwick, U. S. Volunteers, killed May 9, 1864, at Spottsylvania Court-house, Va.
Brig.-General Thomas G. Stevenson, U. S. Volunteers, killed May 10, 1864, at Spottsylvania Court-house, Va.
Brig.-General James C. Rice, U. S. Volunteers, killed May 10, 1864, at Laurel Hill, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Henry H. Giesy, Major 46th Ohio Volunteers, killed May 28, 1864, at Dallas, Ga.
Brevet Brig.-General John McConihe, Colonel 169th N. Y. Volunteers, killed June l, 1864, at Cold Harbor, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Thomas W. Humphrey, Colonel 95th Illinois Volunteers, killed June 10, 1864, at Grentown, Mo.
Brevet Brig.-General Wm. Blaisdell, Colonel 11th Massachusetts Volunteers, killed June 23, 1864, before Petersburg, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General George A. Cobham, Jr., Colonel 111th Pennsylvania Volunteers, killed July 20, 1864, at Peach-tree Creek, Ga.
Major-General James B. McPherson, U. S. Volunteers, killed July 22, 1864, before Atlanta, Ga.
Brevet Brig.-General Griffin A. Stedman, Colonel 11th Connecticut Volunteers, killed Aug. 6, 1864.
Brevet Brig.-General George E. Elstner, Lt.-Colonel 50th Ohio Volunteers, killed Aug. 8, 1864, before Atlanta, Ga.
Brevet Major-General David A. Russell, U. S. Volunteers, killed Sept. 19, 1864, at Winchester, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Frank H. Peck, Lt.-Colonel 12th Connecticut Volunteers, killed Sept. 19, 1864, at Winchester, Va.
Brig.-General Hiram Burnham, U. S. Volunteers, killed Sept. 30, 1864, at Chopin's Farm, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General George D. Wells, Colonel 34th Massachusetts Volunteers, killed Oct. 13, 1864, at Cedar Creek, Va.
Brig.-General Daniel D. Bidwell, U. S. Volunteers, killed Oct. 19, 1864, at Cedar Creek, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Sylvester G. Hill, Colonel 35th Iowa Volunteers, killed Dec. 15, 1864, at Nashville, Tenn.
Brevet Major-General Frederick Winthrop, Colonel 5th New York Veteran Volunteers, killed April 1, 1865, at Five Forks, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General George W. Gowan, Colonel 48th Pennsylvania Volunteers, killed April 2, 1865, near Petersburg, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Theodore Read, Major and Asst. Adjutant-General Volunteers, killed April 6, 1865, at High Bridge, Va.
Died of Wounds Received in Action--(29).
Brig.-General Wm. H. L. Wallace, U. S. Volunteers, died April 10, 1862, at Savannah, Tenn., of wounds received at Shiloh, Tenn.
Brig.-General George W. Taylor, U. S. Volunteers, died Aug. 31, 1862, at Alexandria, Va., of wounds received near Cub Run, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Thornton F. Broadhead, Colonel 1st Michigan Cavalry, died Sept. 2, 1862, of wounds received at Bull Run, Va.
Major-General Jesse L. Reno, U. S. Volunteers, died Sept. 14, 1862, of wounds received in battle of South Mountain, Md.
Major-General Joseph K. F. Mansfield, U. S. Volunteers, died Sept. 18, 1862, of wounds received in battle of Antietam, Md.
Brig.-General Isaac P. Rodman, U. S. Volunteers, died Sept. 30, 1862, of wounds received in battle of Antietam, Md.
Major-General Israel B. Richardson, U. S. Volunteers, died Nov. 3, 1862, at Sharpsburg, Md., of wounds received in battle of Antietam, Md.
Brig.-General George D. Bayard, U. S. Volunteers, died Dec. 14, 1862, of wounds received at the battle of Fredericksburg, Va.
Major-General Amiel W, Whipple, U. S. Volunteers, died May 7, 1563, at Washington, D.C., of wounds received at Chancellorsville, Md.
Brig.-General Edmund Kirby, U. S. Volunteers, died May 28, 1863, at Washington, D. C., of wounds received at Chancellorsville, Md.
Brevet Brig.-General George H. Ward, Colonel 15th Massachusetts Volunteers, died July 2, 1863, of wounds received at Gettysburg, Pa.
Brevet Brig.-General Paul Joseph Revere, Colonel 20th Massachusetts Volunteers, died July 5, 1863, of wounds received at Gettysburg, Pa.
Brevet Brig.-General Louis R. Francine, Colonel 7th New Jersey Volunteers, died July 16, 1863, of wounds received at Gettysburg, Pa.
Major-General George C. Strong, U. S. Volunteers, died July 30, 1863, of wounds received in the assault on Fort Wagner, S. C.
Brig.-General Wm. H. Lytle, U. S. Volunteers, died Sept. 20, 1863, of wounds received at Chickamauga, Ga.
Brig.-General William P. Sanders, U. S. Volunteers, died Nov. 19, 1863, of wounds received before Knoxville, Tenn.
Brevet Brig.-General Wm. N. Green, Lt.-Colonel 173d New York Volunteers, died May 14, 1864, of wounds received in action.
Brevet Brig.-General Arthur H. Dutton, Colonel 21st Connecticut Volunteers, died June 4, 1864, of wounds received in action.
Brevet Brig.-General Wm. H. Sackett, Colonel 9th New York Cavalry Volunteers, died June 10, 1864, of wounds received in action.
Brevet Brig.-General George L. Presscott, Colonel 32d Massachusetts Volunteers, died June 19, 1864, of wounds received in action.
Brig.-General Charles G. Harker, U. S. Volunteers, died June 27, 1864, of wounds received before Marietta, Ga.
Brig.-General Samuel A. Rice, U. S. Volunteers, died July 6, 1864, of wounds received at Jenkins' Ferry, Ark.
Brevet Brig.-General James A. Mulligan, Colonel 23d Illinois Volunteers, died July 26, 1864, of wounds received at Winchester, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Henry Lyman Patten, Major 20th Massachusetts Volunteers, died September 10, 1864, of wounds received in action.
Brevet Brig.-General Willoughby Babcock, Lieut.-Colonel 75th New York Volunteers, died October 6, 1864, of wounds received in action.
Brevet Brig.-General Alexander Gardiner, Colonel 14th New Hampshire Volunteers, died October 7, 1864, of wounds received at Opequan, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General J. Howard Kitching, Colonel 6th New York Volunteer Artillery, died Jan. 10, 1865, of wounds received in action.
Brevet Major-General Thomas A. Smyth, U. S. Volunteers, died April 9, 1865, of wounds received near Farmville, Va.
Brevet Brig.-General Francis Washburn, Colonel 4th Massachusetts Cavalry, died April 22, 1865, of wounds received in action.


_____________________________



(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 46
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 8:30:20 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline 		lots of meteors then during those days.

Honestly - I have fought battles that easely reach 250.000 casualties (added up during all the battles for CSA and USA) and only one general got killed (D.H. Hill).

?

but like I said, most often I play instant battle

< Message edited by spruce -- 3/27/2007 8:31:10 PM >

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 47
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 8:39:21 PM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: spruce

lots of meteors then during those days.

Honestly - I have fought battles that easely reach 250.000 casualties (added up during all the battles for CSA and USA) and only one general got killed (D.H. Hill).

?

but like I said, most often I play instant battle



Well, among those 250,000 men were a lot of colonels and lieutenant colonels who would have become generals had they lived, so that sort of counts. Doesn't it?

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 48
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 8:55:42 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

lots of meteors then during those days.

Honestly - I have fought battles that easely reach 250.000 casualties (added up during all the battles for CSA and USA) and only one general got killed (D.H. Hill).

?

but like I said, most often I play instant battle



Well, among those 250,000 men were a lot of colonels and lieutenant colonels who would have become generals had they lived, so that sort of counts. Doesn't it?



ahum, that's not really the point - I'm trying to kill some enemy generals - but I don't see this happening. I even had "sharpshooter" upgrades and sharpshooter attachment to many of my brigades.

Sometimes dead generals had a great effect on the course of war, Jackson f.e.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 49
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 11:14:09 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline 		I've noticed in most of my detailed battles of decent size (10+ units on a side [about 2 divisions worth]) I generally see at least one AI general killed.  Frequently more.  On the other hand, I've made it thought two years (three times) without losing a single general on my side.  I've felt that the number of AI generals I've been killing has been about right.  I have to admit though that I've felt very odd that I haven't lost any.

My kills have come from plenty of units without the sharpshooter skill too.  Especially early on before I purchase it for any of my units.  In some very lmoderate to arge engagements I've seen two to three AI generals bite the dust.

The only Quick Battles I do are the ones forced on me by the game.  I've use Detailed every other time.  I've not seen anyone die in a QB... but then they are very small engagements.

The worst I've seen so far was an engagement between two forces of ~ 180,000 each.  I lost no genrals as usual but managed to pick off six AI generals... half of them as their forces were routing.  Not to mention the others that managed to get captured.

I'm not advicating one way or the other.  I think my kills of AI generals has felt about right while my own deaths has been non-existant.  I'm just chalking it up to the roll of the dice...

Dude

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 50
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 11:20:45 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline 		Oh, the other thing that just came to mind was to consider that we really don't have as many generals involved as there really were at times.  So if you plan on upping the number of generals killed you would need to simulate more generals involved at any one time.

I've had plenty of engagements the size of Gettysburg but no where near the number of generals that where involved.  So should I have the same number of dead generals that Gettysburg produced?

Becareful what you wish for....



_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 51
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/27/2007 11:54:45 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Eric,

Are only the three "displayed" general in QC vulnerable to casualties or is any involved general vulnerable? Based on what you posted, it looks like the current chance is about right for 3 stars, should be doubled to 30% for 2 stars and tripled or quadrupled for 1 stars.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 52
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 12:14:46 AM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline 		my remark about "too few casualties for generals" comes from instant battles and quick battles. Remember that.

During my "CSA is losing it" campaign I had 2 corps and 1 division to face 2 Union armies. On my side I had about 20 generals minimum involved. Those containers had been fighting from middle 1862 to late 1863 - in total each container fought roughly 12 battles. So that means I had my generals entering 12*20 ~ 250 battles.

I'm using a wide variety of 3stars, 2 stars and one stars in my containers. That means f.e. one corps has 1 3star general - 2 2star and 4one star generals.

When I face the enemy (quick battle) I'm facing many 4star and 3star generals.

Like I said - during 250 battles not one of my guys goes down, and neither of the enemy generals. This might be related to the remark Erik Rutins has made.

Something feels reilly weird and it might be linked to instant battle and quick battle calculus.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 53
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 1:24:31 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Based on this feedback it looks like we should definitely increase the odds of losing generals in quick combat and instant combat. Spruce's evidence is pretty convincing.

(By the way, my comment about colonels and lieutenant colonels was a joke. Whenever I write something that seems idiotic it means either that I am joking or that I am being an idiot. The former is more common than the latter.)



< Message edited by Gil R. -- 3/28/2007 1:42:32 AM >

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 54
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 1:33:41 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		There were definite instances of general officers being killed or wounded by sharpshooters/snipers so could there be a tactic to purchase where there is a greater chance of killing or wounded the commanding officer due to special forces groups out there specifically to kill these guys?

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 55
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 8:20:01 PM   
Jaypea

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline 		All, I have to say is that the forums are much more of a pleasure to read in the past few days.  I also noticed the atmosphere has been much more congenial.  Bravo, lets hope it stays this way


(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 56
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 9:39:29 PM   
Mike13z50


Posts: 344
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline 		I've only had one general wounded in HW, but many killed. I'm not sure of the killed to wounded ratio in the ACW, but since the game has a model for wounded generals to heal or die perhaps you could increase the odds of wounding more.

(in reply to Jaypea)
Post #: 57
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 10:18:17 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Are only the three "displayed" general in QC vulnerable to casualties or is any involved general vulnerable? Based on what you posted, it looks like the current chance is about right for 3 stars, should be doubled to 30% for 2 stars and tripled or quadrupled for 1 stars.


Yes -- I'm considering changing it to allow any general to be killed though.

_____________________________



(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 58
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 10:18:19 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		I've thought that generals should be wounded more too.

_____________________________



(in reply to Mike13z50)
Post #: 59
RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments - 3/28/2007 10:43:42 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
quote:


(By the way, my comment about colonels and lieutenant colonels was a joke. Whenever I write something that seems idiotic it means either that I am joking or that I am being an idiot. The former is more common than the latter.)


well I didn't get that joke, anyhow my generals won't be laughing anymore when the new patch comes out - at least the one-star and two-star guys not.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback >> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

1.484