that was a very good battle, it was fun and touchy, the CSA even broke my line, but the power it took to break it, kept them from being able to follow up with enough power to do anything
that should be the last Hurrah of the CSA in this game
next turn a major battle should be fought in Tenn-Miss-River, it should be around 124000 vs 35000 (4 forts, so take off 12000 lousy troops from the total for the CSA)
most of the CSA friends overseas have left them
and as Gil says, I pretty much out of supply not getting much supplies in my battles (but overall my fault, I not upped the supply levels of my Armies)
Holy cow, what setting is this on? I have no doubt that you're skilled but even so should you really have defeated the South by Oct '62?
Also, the screenies you did provide showed you consistently had 2 or even 3 to one kill ratio over your opponent? While I appreciate the openness of the AAR's, this certainly isn't giving me any faith that the AI, tactical or strategic, is up to snuff. So what settings are you playing on again?
Hard Sarge has been posting the option screens. In each AAR he has played, you can see the difficulty level in the bottom left - it is "First Sergeant". The lowest level of difficulty is "Tutorial", then "Corporal", "Sergeant" and "First Sergeant". It then continues all the way up to "Major General". So, he is playing on one of the lower difficulty settings. As has been discussed previously, the difficulty level does not directly affect the AI performance in the tactical battles, so the kill ratios he is getting at the start of the war would not likely change considerably even at very high difficulty levels. The AI simply can't compete on an even level with Sarge's rather impressive tactical prowess. What would change is that he would have far less resources to invest in raising, supporting, supplying, improving, and equipping his armies. So, over time things would get more difficult for him as his opponent applied its disproportionate economic muscle.
Jchastain is right to point out that Hard Sarge's difficulty level is an important factor, but I'm not sure if the last part of what he wrote will be immediately clear to everyone. On the HARDer settings, the AI gets material advantages, making battles more difficult even if the AI isn't any smarter because the AI can afford more and better weapons, more upgrades, more attributes, etc.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
Jchastain is right to point out that Hard Sarge's difficulty level is an important factor, but I'm not sure if the last part of what he wrote will be immediately clear to everyone. On the HARDer settings, the AI gets material advantages, making battles more difficult even if the AI isn't any smarter because the AI can afford more and better weapons, more upgrades, more attributes, etc.
Yep, in the games I have been seeing - he actually has weapons with better range than the AI. At higher difficulty levels, he would be hard pressed to purchase those upgraded weapons. That would impact his ability to inflict casualties. Supplies have a very significant impact on unit performance. With fewer resources, it would be much harder to maintain high levels of supply and after a fight or two, units would be hard pressed to replenish themselves and their effectiveness would therefore be reduced. At the highest levels, the purchase of additional attributes becomes all but impossible. So, the first few battles might not be materially different, but by 1862 and especially by 1863, the landscape should look quite different (at least it is for me but I am the first to admit that I don't hold a candle to Hard Sarge's command ability).
Hard Sarge has been posting the option screens. In each AAR he has played, you can see the difficulty level in the bottom left - it is "First Sergeant". The lowest level of difficulty is "Tutorial", then "Corporal", "Sergeant" and "First Sergeant". It then continues all the way up to "Major General". So, he is playing on one of the lower difficulty settings. As has been discussed previously, the difficulty level does not directly affect the AI performance in the tactical battles, so the kill ratios he is getting at the start of the war would not likely change considerably even at very high difficulty levels. The AI simply can't compete on an even level with Sarge's rather impressive tactical prowess. What would change is that he would have far less resources to invest in raising, supporting, supplying, improving, and equipping his armies. So, over time things would get more difficult for him as his opponent applied its disproportionate economic muscle.
Just in reading Sarge's reports, the AI seems like it's doing quite well. I know everyone would like to have a situation where on an average difficulty setting with equal opposing forces, the AI would win half of the battles against an average player, but I don't think that's practical. The amount of computing power it would take to accomplish that is probably beyond most PCs and I think poor Eric would die writing the code.
I've brought this up in other threads about computer chess. You have something that has been worked on for decades. It has only 64 squares to move on and none of those squares have any intrinsic value (other than row 8 for pawns). There are a total of 16 pieces on each side. Since every game starts with set parameters, all that was required was to devise a method of determining the value of positions. Back in the 1980's, I had a computer chess game I had to have on the highest difficulty level just to get a solid game. And then, I could go watch a movie while the AI decided what it wanted to do.
Any game like FoF, were 'pieces' have different values and the values change further during play and the 'squares' are more numerous and have differing values as well, it's beyond the realm of practicality to have a rock solid AI. Further complicating things is each battle is different. At least with chess games every battle is fought on the same battlefield over and over again. There are just too many variables. Getting the AI to handle the movement mechanics, operate in some form of cohesive manner and generally have a coordinated plan seems good to me.
But if Eric wants to take on the challenge to code the perfect AI, it must be complete by the year 2050 [:)]
Note: Two hour turns are not acceptable with the perfect AI [:D]
"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."
one of my battles, the AI was moving onto one of my forts in Kentucky, I moved a Div in to help out, but the AI then reinforced with another army, which would of been bad enough, but it then pulled off a Surprise attack
got plastered good on the opening round, but I pulled off one of my better battles, I ran away, and turned between two hills and slaughtered the troops who chased me, and then I got ripped apart, when night fell, I gave the command to retreat, but gave it too soon, and one of my Bdes was captured
the fort finnally fell
now a Union Army has marched into Tenn, my two Corps have driven off the Div guarding Cinci, the AOP has been making raids into Fredericksburg, massive battles, they have taken heavy losses but are wearing my troops down, now they have moved a Div out to sea
the next turn, may bring about 3 Major battles (Tenn-Miss-River, Tenn and Fredericksburg)
the sea raid may hurt, but should not be deadly, but I had to move my coastal Div up to Tenn
I have 2 Divs in Kentucky, that are on rest, another in the west, but that is a decoy
the Union is Hurting, the score is going against it, but all it takes is one good win to flip the score around
some of the changes made since the last few AARs are really coming to the forfront now
