Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Wicked bombardment

 
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] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray >> Wicked bombardment Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 1:21:12 PM   
Basilhare

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline 		Does the Bombardment effect seem overstated to anyone else or is just me?

I have had Union Ships bombard my Confederate coastal forts and eliminate entire units several different times and then this last turn, I had an entire Confederate army corps eliminated from a massive Union bombardment...suffered something like 213 hits...wiped out several divisons worth of troops and a half dozen batteries of guns...Hmmm...doesnt seem quite right???

Anyone else experiencing this?

< Message edited by Basilhare -- 7/11/2007 1:22:21 PM >

_____________________________

Basilhare (Faron)
Post #: 1
RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 4:25:16 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Lol Sounds like the computer AI has used Stargate to go back in time methinks. hahahaha

(in reply to Basilhare)
Post #: 2
RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 4:42:16 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Basilhare
I have had Union Ships bombard my Confederate coastal forts and eliminate entire units several different times and then this last turn, I had an entire Confederate army corps eliminated from a massive Union bombardment...suffered something like 213 hits...wiped out several divisons worth of troops and a half dozen batteries of guns...Hmmm...doesnt seem quite right???



The results you quote are absolutely idiotic in any historical context relating to the ACW. About the biggest think a "bombardment" ever "wiped out" during the Civil War was the poorly-sited and weakly armed Ft. Henry..., and it's garrison merely retired to Ft. Donaldson. If what you quote as an example is even possible, then the game has a serious design flaw in need of correction.

(in reply to Basilhare)
Post #: 3
RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 4:49:49 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		I have seen the exact opposite with respect to Union river fleets being totally destroyed. Fleets with ironclads simply "disappearing" under CSA guns from Armies, not forts.



_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 4
RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 4:52:15 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		oops wrong thread


< Message edited by ravinhood -- 7/11/2007 4:53:14 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 5
RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 4:58:04 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have seen the exact opposite with respect to Union river fleets being totally destroyed. Fleets with ironclads simply "disappearing" under CSA guns from Armies, not forts.



Which would also come under the heading of "historically idiotic". Fleets were "driven off", and sometimes with the loss of vessels. But "wiped out"? If you are taking that kind of "licking", you don't stay around long enough for that kind of result...

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 6
RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 6:23:01 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		This is an area that has undergone some recent patching, and is indeed still a live topic among players and designers for future patching and tweaking, searching for just the right balance:

http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4392

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 7
RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/11/2007 10:21:10 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

This is an area that has undergone some recent patching, and is indeed still a live topic among players and designers for future patching and tweaking, searching for just the right balance:

http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4392



Delighted to hear it's under active discussion. Seems to me that "Range" and "Scale" are getting in the way. At the scale of the map, only an attempt to pass a river fort (Vicksburg, New Orleans,
Donaldson, etc) or enter a seaboard harbor (Charleston, Mobile, etc) should force an engagement.
There is no reason a force at Norfolk should have to, or even be able to, engage naval units entering the Cheasapeake (sic).



  • (in reply to jimwinsor)
    • Post #: 8
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 5:39:33 AM   
    Queeg


    Posts: 495
    Joined: 6/23/2005
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Basilhare

    Does the Bombardment effect seem overstated to anyone else or is just me?



    What game version are you playing?

    (in reply to Basilhare)
    Post #: 9
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 12:57:07 PM   
    Basilhare

     

    Posts: 73
    Joined: 11/27/2004
    Status: offline
    quote:

    What game version are you playing?


    Version "E"

    (in reply to Queeg)
    Post #: 10
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 5:20:09 PM   
    Pocus


    Posts: 1185
    Joined: 9/22/2004
    Status: offline     		1.04e or 1.05e? I would like to see this CSA corps wiped by a USA fleet, this would need correction indeed. After some debates with players, we revised the parameters some weeks ago.

    _____________________________

    AGEOD Team

    (in reply to Basilhare)
    Post #: 11
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 7:23:57 PM   
    Basilhare

     

    Posts: 73
    Joined: 11/27/2004
    Status: offline
    quote:

    1.04e or 1.05e? I would like to see this CSA corps wiped by a USA fleet, this would need correction indeed. After some debates with players, we revised the parameters some weeks ago.


    I had patched to version 1.05e before playing (I bought the game last week).

    The Corps was not wiped out by a fleet, but by bombardment from an adjacent Corps or perhaps a loan heavy artillery unit in the same region.

    The situation was this: Confederate Corps (appx 600sp) occupies Alexandria. A single unit of Union Coastal Artillery moves into the Alexandria region and lays seige. Washington DC has quite a bit of Union artillery and firepower located therein, as well. Turn resolution shows a bombardment in Alexandria but no battle. I re-ran the turn several times and everytime the Union bombardment totally destroyed the Confederate Corps. In all cases, the Corps commander was left and one or two of the division commanders, but no units. All units were completely eliminated. The turn result says the corps was bombarded and suffered 213 hits.



    < Message edited by Basilhare -- 7/12/2007 7:25:34 PM >

    _____________________________

    Basilhare (Faron)

    (in reply to Pocus)
    Post #: 12
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 8:00:58 PM   
    Mike Scholl

     

    Posts: 9349
    Joined: 1/1/2003
    From: Kansas City, MO
    Status: offline     		That's Nasty!   And would seem to be a problem.   With all the siege artillery McClellan took to the Penninsula in the Spring of 1862, if this occurs regularly in the game the Rebel Troops should have been reduced to atoms long before Lee took command.  Hope someone's checking this out.

    (in reply to Basilhare)
    Post #: 13
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 8:08:46 PM   
    captskillet


    Posts: 2493
    Joined: 3/1/2003
    From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
    Status: offline     		Hey if they can time warp the Nimitz back to 1941 then sending the New Jersey & Wisconsin back to 1862 are a piece of cake !

    _____________________________

    "Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest


    (in reply to Basilhare)
    Post #: 14
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 8:39:06 PM   
    Shawkhan

     

    Posts: 125
    Joined: 3/1/2006
    Status: offline     		...As most of us undoubtedly know, one of the unique aspects of the ACW was that artillery was pretty useless in offense, and only really worthwhile within cannister(shotshell range) of 400m or less in the defense. The advent of the rifled musket gave infantry a range greater than this effective range of artillery.
    ...Bombardment of infantry by naval forces was more a matter of keeping the infantry awake than doing much actual damage. Casualties should be quite negligible. Naval guns could take up to 15 minutes or longer to fire just one shot. Successful naval bombardment of land fortifications just didn't happen in the civil war.

    (in reply to captskillet)
    Post #: 15
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 9:04:00 PM   
    jimwinsor


    Posts: 1076
    Joined: 11/21/2005
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Basilhare

    quote:

    1.04e or 1.05e? I would like to see this CSA corps wiped by a USA fleet, this would need correction indeed. After some debates with players, we revised the parameters some weeks ago.


    I had patched to version 1.05e before playing (I bought the game last week).

    The Corps was not wiped out by a fleet, but by bombardment from an adjacent Corps or perhaps a loan heavy artillery unit in the same region.

    The situation was this: Confederate Corps (appx 600sp) occupies Alexandria. A single unit of Union Coastal Artillery moves into the Alexandria region and lays seige. Washington DC has quite a bit of Union artillery and firepower located therein, as well. Turn resolution shows a bombardment in Alexandria but no battle. I re-ran the turn several times and everytime the Union bombardment totally destroyed the Confederate Corps. In all cases, the Corps commander was left and one or two of the division commanders, but no units. All units were completely eliminated. The turn result says the corps was bombarded and suffered 213 hits.




    OK this is really odd because coastal artillery is supposed to be static and can't move. I think it can move by fleet though. Maybe a union fleet in the Potomac dropped it off? Weird.

    Anyways, it sounds like you did get bombarded by said fleet (which due to FOW you could not see?). Artillery in DC should play no role in any of this. You should save a save of this for Pocus!

    _____________________________

    Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

    (in reply to Basilhare)
    Post #: 16
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/12/2007 9:50:13 PM   
    Basilhare

     

    Posts: 73
    Joined: 11/27/2004
    Status: offline
    quote:

    OK this is really odd because coastal artillery is supposed to be static and can't move. I think it can move by fleet though. Maybe a union fleet in the Potomac dropped it off? Weird.


    Yeah, it was game killer for me...not sure what happened...probably a fluke, but I was so freaked out by it, that I have not played since and that was after investing about 20 hours of game play in a 1861 full Campaign as Confederates...i think i will await a full patch and see how things progress....

    _____________________________

    Basilhare (Faron)

    (in reply to jimwinsor)
    Post #: 17
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/13/2007 7:09:20 AM   
    Queeg


    Posts: 495
    Joined: 6/23/2005
    Status: offline     		Never seen that - or anything even remotely like that - in weeks of play. Never seen coastal artillery move. Never seen lone artillery (or lone unit of any kind) attack a Corps. Much less destroy a Corps.

    I'd strongly encourage you to send a save file to Pocus. He's great about looking into things like this. If it's a real problem, I'm sure he'll find and fix it.

    (in reply to Basilhare)
    Post #: 18
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/13/2007 9:48:18 AM   
    Pocus


    Posts: 1185
    Joined: 9/22/2004
    Status: offline     		if there is a real problem, I need the saved game, otherwise it won't magically disapears in the next patch :)

    So please... send it to support@ageod.com. The procedure is as follow:

    Open the following game directory: Ageod American civil war\ACW\Saves. The list of folders is the list of the games you have on your computer. Select the one with the problem

    (if you are unsure of the name, the time stamp can help you), then do a right click: you should have a menu to zip it into an archive, as a single file. Zip the game, and then

    send it by mail if under 5 Mb, or by a website* if bigger (there should be only one file to send).

    *sending by a website: you can try http://files-upload.com/, the operating procedure is as simple as sending a mail.


    _____________________________

    AGEOD Team

    (in reply to Queeg)
    Post #: 19
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/24/2007 4:27:01 PM   
    castor troy


    Posts: 14330
    Joined: 8/23/2004
    From: Austria
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Basilhare
    I have had Union Ships bombard my Confederate coastal forts and eliminate entire units several different times and then this last turn, I had an entire Confederate army corps eliminated from a massive Union bombardment...suffered something like 213 hits...wiped out several divisons worth of troops and a half dozen batteries of guns...Hmmm...doesnt seem quite right???



    The results you quote are absolutely idiotic in any historical context relating to the ACW. About the biggest think a "bombardment" ever "wiped out" during the Civil War was the poorly-sited and weakly armed Ft. Henry..., and it's garrison merely retired to Ft. Donaldson. If what you quote as an example is even possible, then the game has a serious design flaw in need of correction.





    this "feature" is known as NUKE BOMBARDMENT encountered later in WITP also...

    _____________________________


    (in reply to Mike Scholl)
    Post #: 20
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/25/2007 6:14:23 PM   
    HobbesACW


    Posts: 419
    Joined: 2/20/2004
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		I just had 2 heavy artillery batteries wiped out in Norfolk in one turn although they did seem to do quite a bit of damage in return. It was a bit of a shock and I wouldn't have thought all the guns in a town or entrenchment would be wiped out in this way. You would think some could be moved to safety during a heavy bombardment or repaired afterwards. If this is indicative it would be very difficult to keep artillery in one piece in coastal regions.

    Cheers, Chris



    < Message edited by hobbes -- 7/26/2007 2:27:35 PM >

    (in reply to castor troy)
    Post #: 21
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/25/2007 6:17:38 PM   
    Gem35


    Posts: 3420
    Joined: 9/12/2004
    From: Dallas, Texas
    Status: offline     		It would be nice to see some screenshots of these horrible bombardments.

    _____________________________

    It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


    Banner By Feurer Krieg

    (in reply to HobbesACW)
    Post #: 22
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/25/2007 8:02:43 PM   
    jimwinsor


    Posts: 1076
    Joined: 11/21/2005
    Status: offline     		Unfortunately no screenshots are available, really; all you see with ships vs guns is a line in the events on the bottom of the screen, saying X hits were dished out.

    _____________________________

    Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

    (in reply to Gem35)
    Post #: 23
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/26/2007 10:13:43 AM   
    Grotius


    Posts: 5798
    Joined: 10/18/2002
    From: The Imperial Palace.
    Status: offline     		I hope the original poster can send Pocus a savegame. Me, I haven't seen anything remotely like this, and I've been playing for several weeks now.

    (in reply to jimwinsor)
    Post #: 24
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/26/2007 7:09:15 PM   
    Brooksie

     

    Posts: 9
    Joined: 7/25/2007
    Status: offline     		Ive hard large river fleets destroyed by Corps artillery before, granted i think this was due in part to a low cohesion on my river fleets part as well. I think though now with 1.06 out you all will be noticing that Naval Fleet inflict little damage on coastal targets, while em placed arty is doing much more back in return.


    I think Jimwinsor was having a good day when he saw my river fleet under porter sunk.

    (in reply to Grotius)
    Post #: 25
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/28/2007 6:58:37 PM   
    jimwinsor


    Posts: 1076
    Joined: 11/21/2005
    Status: offline     		Yeah, I can veryify Brooksie's comment; basically, with the new 1.06 changes, ships now have to be VERY careful approaching forts or ANY entrenched (level 5+) batteries.

    In our game, Porter with several river ironclads and gunboats tried to sail down the Cumberland, past Bragg's corps in Nashville.

    Unbeknownst to him, Bragg has 4 CSA divisions, each division having 4 batteries; each battery was at full strength (which is 6 I believe) so, there was a total of 24 x 4 = 96 guns there. The entrench level had gotten up to 7 (two more than was needed for anti-ship fire, IIRC).

    Seemed to me, all Porter was trying to do was peacefully sail past...instead the effect was like a fly landing on a bug zapper...according to the event report, Porter's fleet suffered something like 160+ hits...and Brooksie confirmed to me that yes indeed, the entire fleet was vaporized on contact.

    I cannot recall the damage caused to Bragg except that it was insignificant.

    So, I think the issue now under 1.06 is not Wicked Bombardment but perhaps Wicked Coastal Anti-Ship Fire.

    And I'm not sure the problem here is that the damage was too much...96 well sighted guns aimed at a river probably COULD so destroy a river fleet, even of ironclads.  No, the problem is that it is doubtful a river admiral would intentionally subject his fleet to that kind of punishment from batteries for as long as it would take for the annialation to be carried out.

    Perhaps what need to be done is to have ships automatically RETREAT from batteries when the heat gets too hot...much like land forces automatically retreat from combat as they currently do.  This would do much to solve the "bug zapper" problem we now seem to have.

    _____________________________

    Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

    (in reply to Brooksie)
    Post #: 26
    RE: Wicked bombardment - 7/29/2007 3:20:26 AM   
    Gray_Lensman


    Posts: 640
    Joined: 4/10/2003
    Status: offline     		I like your "bug zapper" analogy.

    (in reply to jimwinsor)
    Post #: 27
    Page:   [1]
    All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray >> Wicked bombardment Page: [1]
    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

    0.641