RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5

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: Testing of Patch 1.10.5

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: Testing of Patch 1.10.5

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/18/2007 11:18:13 PM

Gil R.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You're right that one can give the CSA +1 power to solve the problem, but one shouldn't have to do that at one of the easier settings. At a default setting of +0 power and an easy level, the CSA player shouldn't feel too frazzled all the time.

I'd have to disagree with you. The whole point of all these options is to tailor the game to each player. There's really no "one size fits all" as far as subjective/anecdotal reports on game difficulty. Sergeant/First Sergeant is meant to be the historical setting and historically it was tough for the south. You can balance this against other reports that the CSA has it too easy or that the North has it too tough on that same setting. My take is that on the default "historical" settings the balance is about right and players that don't want to deal with the other effects of the difficulty level can just adjust the power.

Sure, I agree with all of that, up until the last sentence, since I think the jury is still out on that. Bill's an experienced player, so if he thinks that the changes have made this setting more difficult than it was intended to be, it's worth considering the issue. It's also worth soliciting opinions from others, which I meant to do in my previous post, but forgot.

Part of my thinking is that beginning players, especially those who aren't experienced at computer games, shouldn't have to mess with power settings when they first start up. Of course, that's just an opinion, but that's where I'm coming from on this.

quote:

To what do you attribute this lack of manpower and resources? Is it there from the start, or is it due to the camps eating up population each April? As I've written above, one of the most important questions we need to settle is whether the population/depopulation that occurs in April is about right, and especially whether camps are consuming too much population. Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

I'm not sure why you're quite this concerned about the camps - after a bunch of reports in internal and public testing show that the CSA hordes are gone and balance seems about right... ? There are so many other factors involved in a given game that you'd pretty much have to look at a few save files to really determine where any particular strategy went wrong.

One of the main reasons I thought we should have public beta-testing was to make sure that in eliminating the CSA hordes (which internal testing proved we had done) we hadn't overshot and made the CSA too weak. Bill's report suggests that this might indeed be an area for concern. I'm hoping that other players will chime in on whether the camps' depletion of population (and thus economic resources, assuming that one hasn't toggled off the link between population and production) is crippling the CSA, rather than simply weakening it.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 91

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/18/2007 11:32:28 PM

wzh55

Posts: 188
Joined: 3/17/2001
From: Sacramento, CA USA
Status: offline

Gil,

The lack of manpower seems to be a direct result of the camps. Every April, camps which supply about 3500-5000 men at present take the entire allotment of population increase almost every April and most of the time there is a negative result (Population Increase = 10, Camps Take = 12 as an example). Around mid war, all money seems needed to refit brigades that are in desperate need, which leaves little money for new camps anyhow, let alone requests from governors for something extravagant such as a university, etc. The Union AI is hellbent on attack, attack, attack everywhere, it is VERY aggressive which leads to many battles fought and won by the Rebels during the first two years or so, and then the men run out, camps eat all population boost, so no conscription or impressment, and no recruitment through normal means. New artillery brigades are definitely out of the question. I do try to use the "power +" or "power -" tweaking and that helps some. You have definitely succeeded in "fixing" the CSA Horde issue. My original point still stands: the difficulty "meter" is skewed towards the difficult end. The difficulty level I am experiencing should be near the middle of the Difficulty Settings, not at the lower end of what most people would assume is the easy end of the range. Instead of 1st Sergarent, it shoul be rated as Captain or above. Hope I have made myself understood.

_____________________________

Bill Hawthorne

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 92

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 12:10:40 AM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wzh55
The lack of manpower seems to be a direct result of the camps. Every April, camps which supply about 3500-5000 men at present take the entire allotment of population increase almost every April and most of the time there is a negative result (Population Increase = 10, Camps Take = 12 as an example).

I thought camp usage was removed before the population increase was added in? Might have gotten that mixed up.

quote:

Around mid war, all money seems needed to refit brigades that are in desperate need, which leaves little money for new camps anyhow, let alone requests from governors for something extravagant such as a university, etc. The Union AI is hellbent on attack, attack, attack everywhere, it is VERY aggressive which leads to many battles fought and won by the Rebels during the first two years or so, and then the men run out, camps eat all population boost, so no conscription or impressment, and no recruitment through normal means. New artillery brigades are definitely out of the question. I do try to use the "power +" or "power -" tweaking and that helps some. You have definitely succeeded in "fixing" the CSA Horde issue. My original point still stands: the difficulty "meter" is skewed towards the difficult end. The difficulty level I am experiencing should be near the middle of the Difficulty Settings, not at the lower end of what most people would assume is the easy end of the range. Instead of 1st Sergarent, it shoul be rated as Captain or above. Hope I have made myself understood.

Thanks Bill, that's certainly clear enough for me.

_____________________________

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 wzh55)

Post #: 93

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 12:19:41 AM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Sure, I agree with all of that, up until the last sentence, since I think the jury is still out on that. Bill's an experienced player, so if he thinks that the changes have made this setting more difficult than it was intended to be, it's worth considering the issue. It's also worth soliciting opinions from others, which I meant to do in my previous post, but forgot.

Ok, I agree with that, I just wanted to be sure that you were considering all reports here since we've had a pretty broad range.

quote:

Part of my thinking is that beginning players, especially those who aren't experienced at computer games, shouldn't have to mess with power settings when they first start up. Of course, that's just an opinion, but that's where I'm coming from on this.

In principle, I agree, but an experience player should be able to use those to fine tune the settings to his own liking. Note that there are also several levels below "First Sergeant" - that's meant to be the "historical" level without giving the AI bonuses in its favor. One can always play at the "Tutorial" or "Corporal", etc. levels to get started. I agree that Bill's report needs to be taken into consideration, it's just that we've also seen reports where CSA Human players have won at this difficult level in this version so while challenging it's not at all insurmountable.

quote:

One of the main reasons I thought we should have public beta-testing was to make sure that in eliminating the CSA hordes (which internal testing proved we had done) we hadn't overshot and made the CSA too weak. Bill's report suggests that this might indeed be an area for concern. I'm hoping that other players will chime in on whether the camps' depletion of population (and thus economic resources, assuming that one hasn't toggled off the link between population and production) is crippling the CSA, rather than simply weakening it.

I'm totally in favor of gathering information, I was just concerned to make sure that you were keeping all reports in mind.

As far as the CSA being neutered by the update, I haven't shared that same concern - the CSA's advantages on the defensive and the fact that this same change also affects the Union has made it seem pretty even-handed to me. The CSA Hordes are gone, but it's still far from easy to actually conquer the South. I think things are about back to where they were before the inadvertent "horde" change which made the South almost invincible.

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 Gil R.)

Post #: 94

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 2:06:19 AM

wzh55

Posts: 188
Joined: 3/17/2001
From: Sacramento, CA USA
Status: offline

Erik, Howdy!
To begin with: this game is outstanding!

Quoting you: "In principle, I agree, but an experience player should be able to use those to fine tune the settings to his own liking. Note that there are also several levels below "First Sergeant" - that's meant to be the "historical" level without giving the AI bonuses in its favor. One can always play at the "Tutorial" or "Corporal", etc. levels to get started. I agree that Bill's report needs to be taken into consideration, it's just that we've also seen reports where CSA Human players have won at this difficult level in this version so while challenging it's not at all insurmountable. " unquote.

I am not saying the game is unwinable at these settings and in this version as the CSA. I have won most of the battles to date (am now around mid 1862) and am enjoying the difficulty presented. Its just that once you get to this point in the games timeline, it is near impossible to take the war to the Union without commiting suicide. I do not see how Lee could have went to Pennsylvania and come back with any semblance of an army or any way of refitting the army if this is an accurate depiction of history (and I think it is close). At this point in the game, every southern region has no population available for recruiting, conscription, or impressment. The only regions that have population available are those with rebellious governors who are against conscription (Georgia as an example). All this is well and fine, very realistic, but as I have said, a beginer would find it difficult to get to a difficulty level at which he could enjoy continuing to play the game with some aspect of historical accuracy. The 1st Sergeant difficulty level should be easier and this difficulty should be reserved for a higher level to be chosen.

In my opinion, the aim of any historically accurate game is to find someway to change history given the same chances had by those involved before. With FoF, this is extremely difficult and there is the challenge, gentlemen.

_____________________________

Bill Hawthorne

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 95

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 3:15:02 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

Why not make each camp consume 1 population? Still havent heard anyone say why its desirable for the population consumption to vary wildly from nothing up to 5 points per camp.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 96

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 5:18:00 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

I don't think the CSA is too weak. I've beaten the Union a couple times now as CSA in Southern Steel. Using 1st Sergeant and all advanced options. I've also lost a couple more than I've won but I expect that as it does take a little bit of luck to overcome the north's advantages. This is also on IB only so it's even harder than using hexwar.

As far as the camps, I'm not sure about the order of it but here's the avg population used per camp is 1.25. Obviously that means you will see more camps use 1 pop than 2 pops but you will also see some 0's and up to 4 pops per camp used (5 being about .1% chance so you'd likely not see it).

It does not seem unreasonable but it would be nice to know what is the chances of filling up lost population to see if a single camp would slowly deplete a city in the long run or not.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 97

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 5:25:51 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

For those of you sufficiently geeky like me to be interested in the distribution of per camp usage each Spring. The distribution does not vary wildly in my opinion - it will be between 0 and 2 for 90% of the time. You can also calculate the expected value from this table which as I mentioned before is 1.25. Total up all your camps and if the pop usage varies a lot from the # camps * 1.25, then maybe there is an issue.

0 Pop
24%

1 Pop
40%

2 Pop
26%

3 Pop
9%

4 Pop
1%

5 Pop
0%

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 98

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 6:10:49 AM

cesteman

Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

Why not make each camp consume 1 population? Still havent heard anyone say why its desirable for the population consumption to vary wildly from nothing up to 5 points per camp.

The camp issue has to do with the CSA hordes when playing the USA. It's just one of the ideas that came out for trying to stop massive CSA troops showing up. Cheers.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 99

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 6:45:45 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

The camp issue has to do with the CSA hordes when playing the USA. It's just one of the ideas that came out for trying to stop massive CSA troops showing up. Cheers.

Not my question. My question is why is it desirable for the amount of population consumed to fluctuate wildly rather than being a fixed amount?

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/19/2007 6:48:31 AM >

(in reply to cesteman)

Post #: 100

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 6:48:38 AM

Gil R.

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

Randomness beats predictability. That's my thinking. Eric might have other reasons, though.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 101

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 6:54:20 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

The camp issue has to do with the CSA hordes when playing the USA. It's just one of the ideas that came out for trying to stop massive CSA troops showing up. Cheers.

Not my question. My question is why is it desirable for the amount of population consumed to fluctuate wildly rather than being a fixed amount?

Well, you didn't really read my post then. 90% of the time between 0-2 doesn't really seem that wild a fluctuation.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 102

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 7:08:46 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

Well, you didn't really read my post then. 90% of the time between 0-2 doesn't really seem that wild a fluctuation.

I read it. 0 to 2 is a bit more of a fluctuation than I like, especially considering the small cities on the CSA side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Randomness beats predictability. That's my thinking. Eric might have other reasons, though.

Sorry, I like predictable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I thought camp usage was removed before the population increase was added in? Might have gotten that mixed up.

The cities are filled with the new population and then the camp usage removes it.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/19/2007 8:02:03 AM >

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 103

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 8:41:21 AM

Gil R.

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

Of course, the flip side is that if one is playing the USA and the CSA's population is too badly depleted by the camps, the CSA might be easily beaten because the AI is often aggressive and after a few attacks by the ANV it will have a lot of depleted brigades and no sources of new brigades. If camps aren't removing as much population, that means the CSA can put up more of a fight -- without the hordes returning. That's the other aspect of the balance that we need to achieve.

Any thoughts on this issue?

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 104

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 8:54:02 AM

cesteman

Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

Taking from the camp population was the idea behind eliminating the hordes. What else could be done? By taking from the popuation, the AI can't produce the huge numbers of troops. Cheers.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 105

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 10:21:07 AM

Houtje

Posts: 172
Joined: 6/19/2006
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

I'm playing CSA, Coming Fury (unbalanced), difficulty is one easier than first sergeant (I forgot the name), but with USA power +1. Now mid 1862 and the south hasn't lost an area yet. Army of NVA matches Potomac's 85000 men, Army of Miss.' 45000 matches Army of the Tenn., while in Missouri a single Division under price roams free in the union rear. Three other divisions guard Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans. All brigades have minie rifle or better, and many have extra abilities, like medical or brig. artillery. I think I can hold on for a while longer (I defeated USA in 20+ battles already), but my camps eat all my new population (I have 12 camps, I think). That means that building another army, like that of Tennessee, will deplete my cities even further. Besides that, with pay-for-support on, my treasury will suffer, since you pay per brigade. I have to say it feels rather historical - if the Union builds another army in, say, Kentucky, I will have to strip my coastal defences, deplete some more cities and take a hit on my earnings. Even while I could still be winning battles, the war will then devastate my economy just by taking it to a higher level, which is exactly what happened in the south, I think.

(in reply to cesteman)

Post #: 106

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/19/2007 6:57:31 PM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

Well, you didn't really read my post then. 90% of the time between 0-2 doesn't really seem that wild a fluctuation.

I read it. 0 to 2 is a bit more of a fluctuation than I like, especially considering the small cities on the CSA side.

Fair enough. I am sure there is no answer that will satisfy everyone however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Randomness beats predictability. That's my thinking. Eric might have other reasons, though.

Sorry, I like predictable.

Again, that's a perfectly fair opinion but if you always knew what was going to happen, I don't see how that's challenging.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I thought camp usage was removed before the population increase was added in? Might have gotten that mixed up.

The cities are filled with the new population and then the camp usage removes it.

If that's true, then that is backwards but I agree with Erik on what I think it's happening. Perhaps worth another look!

< Message edited by Joram -- 9/19/2007 6:59:12 PM >

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 107

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 1:45:03 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

Again, that's a perfectly fair opinion but if you always knew what was going to happen, I don't see how that's challenging.

Challenging? I dont see how its less challenging to go to a fixed cost that is equal to an average random cost. If anything it just removes an element of luck from the population consumption.

I have gamed an april save a bunch of times in a row and sometimes been really lucky and barely lost any population, sometimes have lost a ton. If the former you have CSA Hordes and if the later your economy gets hosed.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/20/2007 1:59:18 AM >

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 108

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 3:19:14 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

Well, I sympathize but I don't really agree. I think luck is an integral part of any game. But I'm not the one you need to convince either. However, you made me think about the variance a bit more ...

Since you have that save, and you're willing to spend the time to do so, it would be interesting to see what your pop depletion is for several trials compared to the number of camps you have. The variation you see is naturally greater the more camps you have so it is quite easy to see a situation with 10 camps depleting 2 each and 10 camps depleting 0 each could produce wildly different results. This is the probably where you are seeing the big variation and it's a good point. One I hadn't considered as I was focusing on one camp.

I also forgot to mention though the expected value for the CSA is actually less than that of the Union for no other reason that the CSA has smaller cities like you mentioned and you can't lose more than the city can hold anyway! So by that reasoning, the USA is actually being dinged more than the CSA.

But then the fact that we are all missing is what is the probability of refilling population which would be illuminating in it's interaction.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 109

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 5:49:43 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

But then the fact that we are all missing is what is the probability of refilling population which would be illuminating in it's interaction.

That fluctuates as well. So two skewed rolls coinciding can throw it to an extreme either way.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/20/2007 6:00:29 AM >

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 110

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 6:00:25 AM

dolphinsfan9910

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

I like the game, it keeps getting better. I would like to see stronger AI campaining out of the Confederate Army of Virginia. They seem to stay in Richmond / Virginia to much when a strong campaign North would do them better.

Sorry, Wish list???

< Message edited by dolphinsfan9910 -- 9/20/2007 6:51:45 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 111

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 6:05:56 AM

dolphinsfan9910

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

Population issues for the North, I hadn't noticed any and I've played 2 games so far with the Beta. Most of my cities had at least half their population most of the game. Many of the smaller cities did not recover much, but then why would they. If needed, I could have produced about 120,000 + Army with what I had in my cities up North. No problem there.

I havn't tried the South yet, so I will get back to you on that.

< Message edited by dolphinsfan9910 -- 9/20/2007 6:44:26 AM >

(in reply to Houtje)

Post #: 112

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 6:29:25 AM

dolphinsfan9910

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

Gil,

I'd like to reply to those complaining about the population issues for the South and lack of manpower latter on. I think the game is historically accurate. I just read a historical fiction trilogy by Newt Gingrich and a Civil war historian in which General Lee pulls back from Gettysburg, fights on better ground, and deals a devestating blow to the Army of the Potomac. They fight the Army of Potomac again in Maryland and deal another devestating blow, take Baltimore, all but destroying the Army of Potomac. Grant comes east with most of his western forces (Vicksburg), pulls everything from Charleston, most of New Orleans, and uses the 20,000 plus garrison from Washington. The new Army of Sasquena (sorry for the spelling) in the Eastern theatre is about 85,000 strong. Sherman is still in Chattanooga with 70,000 men. Beauregard comes north with a division from Charleston, and Jeff Davis provides 10,000 new recruits. That's all the South could muster at that time. In the end the South gets beat by overwhelming odds despite massive defeats for the Nouth.

Point is if you want a historically accurate game, you got to fight those odds. Grant knew the south had no more men and he did, which is why his tactics were to bleed the South.

So to those comlaining about the population issues, the game as is is accurate. Maybe you need to hone your tactics and strategy. If the CSA goes blow for blow against the North, you will loose. Do what ever you can to preserve manpower as the CSA. If you want to be able to go blow for blow then adjust your settings. The South can't afford 10,000 casualties to take a city like the north can.

Similarly, when I play with the North I bleed the South beginning in 1863.

Brad

< Message edited by dolphinsfan9910 -- 9/20/2007 6:49:41 AM >

(in reply to dolphinsfan9910)

Post #: 113

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 8:11:45 PM

ericbabe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

For those of you sufficiently geeky like me to be interested in the distribution of per camp usage each Spring. The distribution does not vary wildly in my opinion - it will be between 0 and 2 for 90% of the time. You can also calculate the expected value from this table which as I mentioned before is 1.25. Total up all your camps and if the pop usage varies a lot from the # camps * 1.25, then maybe there is an issue.

0 Pop
24%

1 Pop
40%

2 Pop
26%

3 Pop
9%

4 Pop
1%

5 Pop
0%

This was the distribution I calculated when we adjusted the rule. Camps are still the most efficient way to turn population into troop strength; the new rule just lessens the gap between the efficiency of camps and the efficiency of building new units. As the distribution shows, it's not a wildly unpredictable loss -- the expectation is very close to 1. We did this because we thought 1 was too low and 2 was too high and there's no such thing as fractional population. The expected value now is 1.19, and that extra bit seems to make a big difference in keeping down the "CSA hordes."

As to whether all this makes the game too hard for the CSA now, I'd love to hear more input on this. Our beta testers had a fairly clear consensus that the game was too easy for the CSA, even with the new camps rule, but that's only a small opinion pool. In general, with FOF and COG, I've found its very hard to balance game difficulty. With COG our veteran beta testers were all giving me ideas to make the game harder, then a month or so before we released we got a new crop of beta testers, and many of those thought the game was too hard, started giving me ideas for ways to make it easier. I think the best thing we can do is to try to gather as many opinions as we can.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 114

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/20/2007 8:56:17 PM

wzh55

Posts: 188
Joined: 3/17/2001
From: Sacramento, CA USA
Status: offline

dolphinsfan9910,

Good day to you sir. I guess I am the one who can be accused of complaining. However, as you can see from my previous posts, I whole-heartedly agree that the game is historically accurate from the standpoint of the Confederacy and its population issue, etc. My only complaint is that the difficulty level I have been playing at (1st Sargeant) should be more towards the mid range of the game's difficulty levels. I only say this for the betterment of the game as regards new persons buying and playing a game that is historically accurate. Most people would expect the lower difficulty levels to be "easy" and when they see that's its no walk in the park, may be frustrated enough to quit playing, what I and you seemingly, consider one the best ACW games for quite some time. Gil did mention what I feel is part of the "problem", the agressiveness of the Union AI. I know historically they did push forward plenty, but in game, they continuously attack every turn until the Confederates are depleted, economically and manpower wise. I know that did happen, but took longer and was due to many factors including the Confederates trying to take the war to the Union (Gettysburg, etc.). So maybe, just maybe the Union AI could be toned down agressively speaking, just a bit. Then I could maybe attempt the trip into Pennsylvania and even change history. And, by the way, I am a southerner from ole Virginia! (maybe that's part of it also)

_____________________________

Bill Hawthorne

(in reply to dolphinsfan9910)

Post #: 115

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/21/2007 12:12:12 AM

ericbabe

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

Complaining's OK. I say that now...

We could give the player bonus levels of April re-population on the lower levels to offset the effects of camps? I agree it's important to fine-tune the difficulty levels so they're just right.

_____________________________

(in reply to wzh55)

Post #: 116

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/21/2007 1:16:26 AM

wzh55

Posts: 188
Joined: 3/17/2001
From: Sacramento, CA USA
Status: offline

Eric,

Do what you think is necessary to continue making this game better. That was my wish when I made the initial post regarding my concerns. Up to this point you folks at WCS and Matrix have listened maybe too well to your customers. The game may be as accurate and balanced as possible now. My only desire is to ensure that other people who purchase this game enjoy it as much as I have and continue to. That is why I mentioned the point about the difficulty level needing adjustment (for new customers / gamer players), as I am enjoying the difficulty level I am playing at. Looking forward to the expansion and completely new complaints.

_____________________________

Bill Hawthorne

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 117

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/21/2007 3:37:47 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

We could give the player bonus levels of April re-population on the lower levels to offset the effects of camps? I agree it's important to fine-tune the difficulty levels so they're just right.

Maybe just make depopulation have less of an effect on the amount of money a city produces? This way you wouldnt see the infantry hordes but might see the CSA AI able to do more (like make more arty and cav) with the somewhat gimped economy they seem to get more often now.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/21/2007 3:45:58 AM >

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 118

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/21/2007 6:23:39 PM

ericbabe

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

That might be good. New players can turn off the effects that population has on money production, and I think this is off when you play the game at the Basic and Intermediate levels though.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 119

RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 - 9/21/2007 7:51:50 PM

Gil R.

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

Okay, I'll reveal my thoughts here, having tried to avoid leading the witness. I've been thinking for some time that a modest change -- specifically, giving each camp just four chances to eat up population rather than five -- would be an improvement. It wouldn't be enough of a change for the hordes to be able to return, but at the same time it would help the CSA to produce a few more brigades each year and have a bit more money/resources. Based on what you all are seeing, does that seem helpful, unnecessary, or bad?

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback >> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5