Concerns & Questions

[Viking67]

Concerns:
- The first time I played the grand campaign in COG, I won as Sweden. I would have thought it nearly impossible to win as Sweden. I think it was too easy. I hope winning FOF will be much more difficult, as either side.
- COG feels smallish to me. I think the map is not big enough. There are not enough map zones. The ACW setting needs to feel immense! There should may many, many, map zones with much details, and the ability to zoom in and out.
- Detailed battles were often too easy. I would often win with a much smaller force. This AI needs improvement. The AI must be capable of coordinated attacks.

Questions:
- Recruiting. Are recruits drawn from specific areas/states and is the ability to recruit based on a states sentiment towards the Union or CSA?
- Will the ability to train troops be available? Can they specialize, IE: fast marching, trench diggers, sharp shooters, etc...?
- Will generals have different/unique abilities? IE: some are excellent trainers and horrible battle field Generals and visa versa. Some are excellent at logistics, etc...
- Will there be heavy details regarding naval forces? IE: naval leaders, naval equipment, etc...

[ericbabe]

The easy levels in COG were designed in such a way that it would be almost impossible for players to lose.  I know Ralegh has beaten COG as Sweden on Bonaparte level, but judging by his AAR it didn't seem to have been an easy thing to do.

In an early beta incarnations of COG we had almost 700 map zones (compared to the 200 or so that COG currently has).  We found that with the WEGO movement system, units were having a hard time finding each other.  Also, because each province has economic settings, the huge number of provinces made economic management quite unwieldy.  The FOF map has 256 movement zones, and so is just a bit bigger than the COG map.

I have written extensively on the AI on the COG threads and don't have much to add beyond what I've written previously.

New brigades in FOF do come from specific locations within states.  They can either be produced with resources (as in COG), which gives a regular-quality unit, or they can be mustered/conscripted.  Mustering has a percent chance of success that varies by location and is related to the governor's attitude/actions and to national will.  Conscription never fails to produce a unit, but can lead to unrest and other negative consequences.  Muster/conscription produces lower quality units.

There are 25 "special abilities" available to units.  Examples are: "Diggers: better at making field fortifications; Fast: +3 to movement; Night Owls: better moving and fighting at night; Bulldogs: reduced damage from flankers; Dreaded: causes additional morale loss when firing on enemies at range 1."  We use these special abilities in a few ways:

* Famous units may start with one or two of these abilities.  For instance, I think the Iron Brigade starts with the Heroes special ability.
* Generals know between 0-5 special abilities.  Generals have a chance to teach these abilities to units under their command each turn.  If they do this, the unit permanently gains the ability.  Generals can also temporarily grant these abilities to units under their command at the start of a detailed battle.

Naval units can change weapon types, and there is a category of naval upgrades.  But we haven't added too many other details to naval combat.

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

For instance, I think the Iron Brigade starts with the Heroes special ability

Don't forget the Stoneall Brigade

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

For instance, I think the Iron Brigade starts with the Heroes special ability

Don't forget the Stoneall Brigade

They're in there. We gave them "Disciplined" (= just two movements to change formation in combat) and "Heroes" (= improves morale of adjacent units each turn). Plus, they have special attributes that help their movement and ability to take advantage of defensive terrain, and a scouting bonus.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Yohan

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

For instance, I think the Iron Brigade starts with the Heroes special ability

Don't forget the Stoneall Brigade

They're in there. We gave them "Disciplined" (= just two movements to change formation in combat) and "Heroes" (= improves morale of adjacent units each turn). Plus, they have special attributes that help their movement and ability to take advantage of defensive terrain, and a scouting bonus.

I really do like the level of research you guys put in to these types of details. As with CoG, this game will be a learning experience as well as fun.

[Peever]

I'm not sure how big of a role that leaders/generals will play in this game but I hope there is an option to randomize their stats/abilities.  American Civil War: Sumter to Appomattox had the option to randomize leader traits and it really added to the immersion of the game and I haven't really seen it in many other war games.

With history's hindsight we don't have to go through the struggles that Lincoln went through in order to find the right leader.  I doubt many people are going to be placing Burnside in charge of the Army of Potomac for instance but will instead go right for Grant or Sherman.  If the generals will play a big role in this game having the option to randomize thier stats will give the game a lot more depth and replay value.  Will McClellan be a greater tactician than Lee or will he be...McClellan?[:'(]  

[ericbabe]

There is an option to randomize leader abilities.

[fmonster]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

There is an option to randomize leader abilities.

That's good news! [:)]

[Arnir]

ORIGINAL: fmonster

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

There is an option to randomize leader abilities.

That's good news! [:)]

I second that.

[Viking67]

ericbabe,

I looked for your previous posts under CoG. I am sorry but I could not find them. I am sure they are there.

You previously said you had written extensively on this subject.
- Detailed battles were often too easy. I would often win with a much smaller force. This AI needs improvement. The AI must be capable of coordinated attacks.

Can you please summarize?

[ericbabe]

Regarding AI, people gave many suggestions for improving it and we discussed the feasibility of some of the ideas, some of which I was able to implement.  I also had some discussion on the limits of artificial intelligence.  I wrote comparing three games and AI for them: Chess, Go, and Crown of Glory.  Fairly good AI has been written for Chess; fairly poor AI has been written for Go.  The difference between Chess and Go and the relative quality of their AI's is in the size of something mathematicians call their "state-space."  Computer scientists have devoted their careers to producing Go algorithms, but to date the best Go algorithm only ranks "weak amateur" in the official Go rankings.  I then showed that Crown of Glory has a much larger state space than Go does and so the theoretical limits that apply to the Go AI should apply even more severely to the COG AI.  None of this isn't to say that the AI algorithms in Crown/Forge can't be improved, but I hope it does make people realize that AI has inherent theoretical limits, and that it is unrealistic to expect that any AI could out-play a good human player on an even playing field in any game with a state space as large as COG/FOF detailed combat. 

We then had a discussion in which I asked whether (in future titles) players would prefer simpler games with smaller state spaces for which much better AI could be written.  Such games would have to be somewhat less like simulations and a bit "gamier."  The general consensus seemed to be that people would not prefer simpler games, but enjoyed having many details.  To make the game challenging against AI in very detailed games, the AI needs some formal and material bonuses, such as extra resources and bonuses in combat.  Several people cited games which had AI they found to be challenging (Civ IV was prominent among them), and all of those games gave explicit bonuses to the AI based on difficulty level.

[sol_invictus]

There is no doubt that this game will scream to be played by two carbon based creatures, both for the challenge and the excitement of going against another human.

[fmonster]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

There is an option to randomize leader abilities.

Just came to mind,.... will the game allow radomized Governor abilities as well as historic? (Can you tell it has been a slow night at work?[:D])

[TBKR]

I was very interested to read that Brigades are raised from specific locations, however I was wondering whether this would allow for them to have some additional level of regimental detail added. I believe this to be necessary since that added level of detail is why people love many Matrix titles. ie WiTP springs to mind.

[Gil R.]

TBKR,
I'm not sure what you mean by "regimental detail," but you'll be glad to know that there will be 100+ special units based on historical brigades, regiments and companies -- some chosen for their fighting reputations, others for something colorful about their name or history. We'll add more such units through patches.

[dwwindsor]

Any chance of making this a selectable option. I, for one, find it more than a bit ahistorical based on the fact that some brigades (the common ones mentioned so far being the Stonewall and the Iron Brigades) performed well for about a year apiece. After that casualties and replacements reduced their performance to the norm. The Iron brigade in particular, in line with Federal practice, recieved few replacements but instead had a new regiment assigned early in 1864 to bring it up to strength. This new, untested regiment alone represented over half the strength of the brigade.

I can see this "super brigade," approach resulting in the formation of something akin to shock armies, not a concept held by any of the participants in 1861-65.

[Viking67]

"Super Brigades" were not formed; rather they were developed through training, experience, and successes.

I would argue that at formation, brigades were roughly equal and untested. What set them apart over time was their training, leadership, experiences, and successes.

Perhaps brigades should start out roughly equal and evolve.

[dwwindsor]

This is all true but my point is that performance changed over time because of changes in leadership, and the mix of veteran vs. new soldiers within a brigade. Hardcoding elite brigades would subvert this. For those who want this sort of thing it should be an option, emphasis on option.

Leadership also was not uniform over time but here it is a function of command level. John Bell Hood was considered to be an excellent brigade commander but an indifferent division and corps commander and as an Army commander he displayed something less than what was hoped for. As a corps level commander Burnside rendered excellent service along coastal Carolina but performed far less well as an Army commander.

[Gil R.]

These special units won't really unbalance the game, and their presence will certainly appeal to many players who like the idea of having the Iron Brigade or Terry's Texas Rangers in the game, but making this an optional feature is a good idea, and is likely to be implemented by us. Thanks for the suggestion.

[TBKR]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

TBKR,
I'm not sure what you mean by "regimental detail," but you'll be glad to know that there will be 100+ special units based on historical brigades, regiments and companies -- some chosen for their fighting reputations, others for something colorful about their name or history. We'll add more such units through patches.

Hi thanks for the reply and apologies for the delay in responding. By "Regimental detail" I was referring to whether the regiments that make up each brigade would be outlined in the game. I understand that the Brigade is the smallest size unit, however what I was hoping was that there would be stats given on each of the regiments that comprise the Brigade.