My take, observations and comments on the patch after 3 AI games as US

[Walloc]

****Some Admins plz move this to the appropriate forum it got posted wrongly***
Belongs in beta feedback forum, sorry.

First off gratz to the team behind FoF on the patch.

Its in general for sure an improvement and i especially love all the new info screens and the way the quality improvement after battle works out over time now, is much better.
Following units through out all the battle info screens and seeing them improve over time. Pre patch I as US was happy to get many quality 4+ units at the end of the war. Now i have lots and even a few 5 and a 6 and i can even see how they have done throught the war. Gives a more "personal" touch to the units.

While congratulating the team, Im not all cheers. I do have some concerns and some items IMHO that could be tweeked to the better. This is going to be a longish post. [:)]

Possible actual bugs.

1. If i understand the following correctly its from the complied rule changes, as per Erik post.
• Emancipation criteria. The USA can now only emancipate when (a) the South has a total European diplomatic levels of 12 or more, and (b) the USA has a positive victory score for Battles won. The CSA can now only emancipate when (a) the CSA has a total victory score of -6 or less and (b) the CSA has a negative Battles victory score. Emancipation criteria are dropped after 1863

Does that meam from jan 63 no crieria is required and you should be able to emancipate no matter what? if so thats bugged. Tested it for both sides. Come jan 63 and the button isnt avaible. Aka u cant do it. Less the button has been moved some where sneaky [;)]


2. Also redoing buying weapons. I had no problem backspace those before the patch. Now if i have a container moving then buying weapons. Backspace will retrace the movement and doesnt allow redoing bought weapons.

3. Surrendering brigades. Both in HW and through non retreat route on the strategic map doesnt seem to count as casulties in determaining if battles are decisive. Is there right?
I had ANV surrender because of no retreat 130k-15k men battle loss and it didnt count for a desicive victory Nation will wise. That seems odd.



Observations and opinions now.

My opinions are based on 3 games as US side, vs CSA AI. 2 nov´61 standart scn and 1 july. All advanced setting, tho with historic generals and no deviation in appearance time. Standart economy and standart sieges. Started on sgt level of hard and gone up to captain in last of the 3 games game. This sorta been on purpose seeing how the improved AI would do with no or low advantages to either side. Ill play CSA side next when i get some time.


1. The strategic AI. Its IMHO been vastly improved in the patch, with 1 downside tho. It does stuff now. Its much more aggresive. Pre patch i could encircle one enemy division with 1 of my own division, moving slowly province to province around it. Bringing it into a postiton where it couldnt retreat if attacked and it wouldnt really react.
That doesnt happend any more, trying to do this to the AI and it just retakes the provinces and it becomes more a game of cat and mouse, between the 2 divisions trying to gain an edge.
Overall the AI seems much more reactive now. Much more see-saw feeling too it.

There is one drawback IMO tho and its a big one. The AI launches deep strikes into enemy territory with ANV sized armies. Attacking cities or other targets 2-3-4 provinces deep into enemy territory. This leaves it with out retreat options and if caught and beaten therefore resulting in its the full destruction. Having half or more of ones field army wiped out in such a manner is naturally cripling.

Ill describe what happend in my first game since it was recreated in effect in the 2 others.
Just after the winter '62, with Kentucky just joined my side, as i advanced in and meet the Western CSA armies in Tennesee and Louisianna. The ANV moved from Northern Virginia, leaving all of virginia empthy of all field troops less a one brigaded division. In 2 moves it was sieging Louiseville at this time 3 provinces deep into my territory.
Seeing an oppertunity to destroy all of the ANV i naturally followed with AotP and my largest western army came up to help / cut it off. Since this happend so fast the ANV / AI was a step ahead of me and it managed to capture the city of Louisevile, but not the province, since he had no adjencent provinces. Yup, a 1 turn siedge btw. Testomony to improves sieges.
As he tries to move south back to CSA territory i intercept him and beat him. 130k CSA troop just poofed, cuz of no retreat option.
3-4 month later after i have taken the northern parts of Missisispi and Alabama and most of Tennesee, he gathers the all his remaining field troops , less a small force in Louisiana. About 80k men and charge up into Nashvile again 3 provinces deep into my territory. I have a large army in the next province over so I attack the following turn beating him with this force destruction to follow too, cuz of no retreat option.
That was for all pratical purposes the end of the CSA field army. In april 63 it had not single division with a brigade in it on the map. In part to this and in part to as described below issues with the tactical AI. That just left up mobbing up cities which was done in oct 63 for victory.

I would like to hear if others has seen the same? or similar behavior

If so I propose that the strategic AI is tweeked further on this and some sorta stop code is implimented to avoid that sorta behavior. Atleased at AI should take no retreat situasion more into account and only go into those situasions if the reward of such is very large. I didnt see this type of behavior pre patch.
Possibly allowing retreats into non enemy occuiped, enemy provices could be a solution i remember some discussion about it in dec, IIRC.

2. Tactical AI. Lots has happend here too its again much more aggresive.
Eric, made this comment: We only made a few changes to the tactical AI, but they seem to have made a big improvement, at least in some circumstances.

Im not sure if its this he referes too, but this is what i see. Ill refere to the thread tm.asp?m=1412619
because mike 13z50 have posted some pictures which illustrates perfectly.

When at equalor or larger numbers, both attacking or defending the new aggresive tactical AI is IMO at its best and is a big improvement over the prepatch.

There are 2 issues as i see it. First is with the aggresiveness and AI seems to be just as aggresive if out numbered. What then happens is that the AI still tries to be aggresive and outflanks me. In doing so it ends up in a situssion where it "drops" of units in collum widely spaced along the front, trying to outflank. Those units are now all alone infront of my battleline and i just totally surround those isolated units. A few shots on them with 5 flankers and the run, but cant retreat and surrenders. Rinse and repeat.
It rarely seems to try and make a battle line of units in line. This meant with even only a slight nummerical advantage if u dont really care about them trying to out flank you that u can steadily surrond unit after unit.
This means i now i always seem to win these battles and with alot more captured brigades than prepatch. I prepatch always found my self lucky when i managed to capture brigades, now its more a given. This is a retrograde step IMO.
I know programming AIs arent easy, but i hope there is a middle way.

I suggest since humans knows how many troops are engaged in battles that the AI is tweeked to also take into account the numbers engaged and when equal or at an disadvantage to act less aggresively. I know that for defense now atleased at lower levels of difficulty it doesnt have trenches any more. So it had to change, but this seems to me for both the AI defending and attacking that i didnt captured nearly as many brigades in those circumstances. Some of this through has to do with the next issue illraise so tweeking that might play into this.


The AI always tries outflanking to left of the AI as Mike13z50 says. To phrase it differently, going North around my troops. In 30+ HW battles played in those 3 games. It always going around north never seen it try south or right as u might call it. Mike13z50 thread has a perfect picture of it.
Apart from the precdabilty of that, it also IMO worsens the capture brigade situasion.
In HW CSA most of the times seems to start W and US E.
The "natural" retreat route for broken CSA brigades seems to be S and back W.
So when it tries to out flank north it ends up cutting of its own retreat route.
If u let it do its outflanking initially and then when it comes down to the fighting u leave a hole or 2 open in ur line. Then when the AI brigades breaks its now N of ur force and a substantial number of times its broken brigades tries to escapes down south right through ur troops.
Again a slam duck surround and lost brigade.

It seems if it tried to do more outflanks southwards it would leave much of its obvious retreat route open. Also the colored hexes which i find a brilliant concept made it hard to prepatch surround enemy forces cuz if u tried moving south you would run into those. These Northwards outflanks sorta negates that concept since the AI now does the job for u. Im hoping it can be made less prone to do those in the while keep its aggresivness.

I can see that in Mike's case the result was exactly the same. So i'd like for other players too comment on their findings.
That said, logic tells me that more southwards outflanks instead of northwards would reduce this significance of this issue. Even if a non issue. [:D]


3. Governour requests.

Many thanx to Artmiser for making the new tables for sensible governour requests.
Love that i get no more requests for shipyards in the west and 5 banks a month.

Based on what i've seen i would like a toning down on number of request early in the game tho.
18 turns into one of my games, july '62. i had gotten the follow requests
8 Mfg. centers, 4 foundries, 3 hospitals, a couple of horse farms and Mansions. Plus assorts Colleges and like. I know the Colts have just becomed world champions and i wish Indianapolis all the best. But do they need 3 mfg centers and 2 foundries in 18 turns? [:D]

It might be my playing style, but i like to fulfill govenours requests, so their attitude dont fall and they end up opposing you. Those minus 15 money and sorts are a big hit on the economy, so its easily a downwards falling spiral i try to avoid.
But that many resource demanding building left absolutly no funds for any thing else but trying to keep the govenours happy. Mfg centers are 100 labor and 100 steel. Foundries about half that. It wasnt until the start of 63 that i could start thinking about the army and building stuff for that, apart from a few academies and camps. i was strugling to keep up. IMO thats a bit over the top.
In the other 2 games it was a bit better, but not much.
Could there be some sorta weight at the new building table so the requests are priovetized making it harder than now for the most resources requiring buildings to be requested. Or an all togther toning down of requests?

Im aware there are semi work arounds for that. One is play with richer economy, two the historic scn or just dont fulfill the request and suffer the consequences. Still seems not to be all that fun playing standart scn and having ur game, economy wise being dicated by
the govenours, instead of flavouring it. I remember a discussion about how beta testers didnt have much fun early in development as CSA since they coudnt buy any thing. i have same feeling now. [:(] There is a possible pbem balance issue in it too.


4. Teaching abiltities. It should be taken into account that i have only played as US and with historic generals so there are some reservation to the following opinion.
From the notes i saw that the teaching fomular has been changed and its now harder for generals to teach abilties.
I found that as US side this is more than way offsetted by the fact, u have many more generals then pre patch for starters and many generals with lots of abilties.
The effect of this in my games has been that my entire field army, the 3 4 starting armies by mid 62 had all, but 2 units with 1 ability and over half had 2. By start 63 it was hard to find a unit that didnt have the 2 abilties teached. Taken into account should be that ofc alot of the LU alrdy has 2 abilties for starters. Also u can get abilities through combat experince now. Thumbs up.
Still that seems to IMO take some of the value off LUs. If all and every unit has 2 abilties very early. Maybe the teaching should be tweeked even lower.

Any one played with non historic generals and have an opinion?


At some point Eric asked if it shouldnt be possible to have the same ability twice. As i recall he didnt get many reponses. Ill respond now. Quite a few of the abilities doesnt stack. Some are oblique fire, disiplined, brave, polar bears, resilient, wild and bulldogs. If not entirely remove, remove the possibilty of having the same abilty twice of those that doesnt stack with it self?
Prolly belongs in wish lists thread tho.

Lastly has there been a change in prioverty of what govenours support?
I see alot more support diplomacy than before and less support economics and conscriptions. Had 4 support France and 3 England at the same time.
Or just randomnes?


It might seem im very negative about the patch, but overall i think its a great improvement, but trying to be a beta bunny and giving my opinions and bringing it out there so other ppl might chime in. Only dealbreak issue i see is the sorta suicide deep raids of ANV sized armies.


Kind Regards,

Rasmus

[Erik Rutins]

Thank you Rasmus, some excellent feedback. I'll move this to the beta forum.

[ericbabe]

Yes, thanks.  I've added several items to my to-do list.  We can try having the strategic AI not move large military groups into provinces that don't have 2 or more adjacent friendly provinces (right now it just is worried about having one friendly adjacent province wherever it goes).  We could even try 3, though that might create bottlenecks in some areas.

The detailed combat AI does formulate different strategies depending on total troop strengths, though we did change the defensive behavior a bit.  There are about a dozen different parameters we can try tweaking -- and we might even try randomizing these each battle to try to get the AI to act less predictably.

[Gil R.]

Yes, thanks, those comments are very helpful.

One point I'd make is that while you're right that governors request an awful lot and thus there is a great chance of disappointing them, with these new rules for promoting generals you get to make an awful lot of promotions up front, and these raise governors' attitudes quite a bit. Pre-patch, such promotions were scattered out, turn by turn, and academy by academy.

Regarding LU's being watered down, this has been a major concern of mine, and one thing I still have to do for this patch is buff them up a bit, giving them all some free attributes such as Medical, Baggage Train, etc., plus giving a few more "Dreaded" and "Heroes" (which are now taught only by a small number of generals, making them more valuable). I'll do that in the coming days and post the file for anyone who wants to install it.

[Erik Rutins]

Maybe we should just give all LUs, whether starting or later, the +1 Quality bonus?

[General Quarters]

I think I agree with all Walloc's points except about governors. Some players are frustrated when they can't meet all governors requests, and I was too until it dawned on me that I needed to prioritize. Now I focus on whether the building is useful and whether the governor requests or "insists" or "demands." This is like real life -- you can never satisfy the desires of all governors, senators, mayors, etc. Now this feature has become, for me, one of the interesting challenges of the game -- I can only meet a limited number of governors requests, so which ones should I meet?

[Drex]

And as Gil said above, if you can't afford one of the requests, find a general from that state and promote him to boost attitude.

[Walloc]

Not that many Indy generals around [:D]

ill try relax on giving them what they wants and see how it plays out in their regard for me. Especially seeing how many will or wont end up opposing me.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Drex]

Well maybe what we need is a list of generals and their states or a list of states with their generals so we can find them- assuming they are available at the time you need them. If there are none then you have a political decision to make. Give in to them or ignore them.

[General Quarters]

Another factor is that some governors are so much in your corner that you don't have to worry about losing a few points with them, and some governors are so negative that they will still hate you even if you do some things for them.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Walloc
.
.
.
Ill describe what happend in my first game since it was recreated in effect in the 2 others.
Just after the winter '62, with Kentucky just joined my side, as i advanced in and meet the Western CSA armies in Tennesee and Louisianna. The ANV moved from Northern Virginia, leaving all of virginia empthy of all field troops less a one brigaded division. In 2 moves it was sieging Louiseville at this time 3 provinces deep into my territory.
.
.
.
Rasmus

Gee, I had hoped this was a fluke with my recent game... I couldn't believe it when the entire army in Northern Virginia left to move to western Kentucky. There was nothing left in VA except a few garrisons and 3 brigades. At first I thought perhaps the AI was trying to bait me into marching into VA but he never returned. It just moved and sat in West Kent/Tenn doing nothing. Meanwhile I watch four brand new Confederate army containers appear and move to Richmond... Empty! When I finally decided to move on Richmand my only oppostion where the garrisons, 3 empty divisions, 1 empty Corps, and 4 empty Armies (each with it's own personal 4 star commanding no one!)

The only thing that came to mind were the press reports coming out of the South... "A government official denys that the Union army is anywhere near Richmond. The same offical assures us that with four Conderate armies in the area '..the Yankees wouldn't dare attack.' The official then showed us the paperwork promoting four of our finest generals to four stars and appointing them command of these four great armies outside Richmond."

Meanwhile, a few days later in the north.... "... reports are coming in from Richmond that there was no opposition to taking the southern capital. General Grant reports the capture of the command staffs of three divisions, one corps, and four armies."

I think the AI needs tweaks to prevent the movement of large guarding forces like ANV and to prevent the creation of so many useless armies... At the high point the AI had 6 confederate Army containers (no not corps named as armies but actually army containers... I checked to make sure!) All but 1 was empty except for it's newly promoted four star general.

Dude

[Mike13z50]

Excellent post Rasmus,

I've only played one game from Jul61-Jan62, but have experienced some of the things you mention.

1."Just after the winter '62, with Kentucky just joined my side, as i advanced in and meet the Western CSA armies in Tennesee and Louisianna. The ANV moved from Northern Virginia, leaving all of virginia empthy of all field troops less a one brigaded division. ...I would like to hear if others has seen the same or similar behavior"

The same thing happened in my game; the ANV went from Lynchburg to middle Kentucky (which was still neutral and then joined the CSA). I walked right in to Richmond, capturing it in Dec61.

2. HW "Those units are now all alone infront of my battleline and i just totally surround those isolated units. A few shots on them with 5 flankers and the run, but cant retreat and surrenders. Rinse and repeat."

I tried this, but when I would advance the AI would back-off, keeping his distance. Did you surround him in column? I usually don't try that until he breaks.

3. "It seems if it tried to do more outflanks southwards it would leave much of its obvious retreat route open. Also the colored hexes which i find a brilliant concept made it hard to prepatch surround enemy forces cuz if u tried moving south you would run into those. These Northwards outflanks sorta negates that concept since the AI now does the job for u. Im hoping it can be made less prone to do those in the while keep its aggresivness."

One problem this caused me, was that when his troops got "north" of mine, my troops were suddenly in the yellow/red hexes and quickly routed. I found pushing a single brigade north of the AI caused him to back off.

4. "Love that i get no more requests for shipyards in the west and 5 banks a month."

Personal Pet Peeve, can we take Universities off the governor list? What is this socialism? Only privately funded universities should be allowed.
Seriously though, at 250 cash who would build one, unless having two universities offers a +2 to each research bureau in the city...

5. "Any one played with non historic generals and have an opinion? [about teaching]

The new rules make playing with hidden/random stats doable. I never used to use those options because it took forever to find the generals stats and traits. In the new version it seems combat is more frequent, and traits are revealed faster. I'd say my leaders train a couple of brigades on most turns. I haven't noticed one learning a new trait in combat though.

6. "At some point Eric asked if it shouldnt be possible to have the same ability twice."

I agree the ones that don't stack should only be learned once. Having a super digger, or a unit that is double fast creates a unique, useful, and possibly memorable unit (character development). Having a unit that has always returns to column, twice, is a gip.

7. " Only dealbreak issue i see is the sorta suicide deep raids of ANV sized armies."

That would tend to spoil the game, in the previous version I usually wiped out the western armies (either side) in a year, then it was siege, siege, siege, while building an army to take the enemy capital. Ideally we want the AI to build and deploy armies "like" a human would, tough programing though. In my game I haven't hit a "dealbreak issue" yet.

[Drex]

Maryland's Gov seems to have that tendency.(in reply to General Quarters)

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50

2. HW "Those units are now all alone infront of my battleline and i just totally surround those isolated units. A few shots on them with 5 flankers and the run, but cant retreat and surrenders. Rinse and repeat."

I tried this, but when I would advance the AI would back-off, keeping his distance. Did you surround him in column? I usually don't try that until he breaks.

3. "It seems if it tried to do more outflanks southwards it would leave much of its obvious retreat route open. Also the colored hexes which i find a brilliant concept made it hard to prepatch surround enemy forces cuz if u tried moving south you would run into those. These Northwards outflanks sorta negates that concept since the AI now does the job for u. Im hoping it can be made less prone to do those in the while keep its aggresivness."

One problem this caused me, was that when his troops got "north" of mine, my troops were suddenly in the yellow/red hexes and quickly routed. I found pushing a single brigade north of the AI caused him to back off.

As too number 2. Yes i'd use columns. Usually 1 or 2 of my lines can make up in front up the enemy unit. Firing and pinning it. Then the rest of my units would encircle it in columns. i've never found that to be much of a problem and since the units usually are sorta isolated there are no real risk either. Shhhhh, i might even have occationally used a supply wagon to plug a hole. I keep telling my self that in MY army EVERY body fights also the supply guys. No slackers accepted. [:D]

As to number 3. Yes that is an issue for me too, but if usually just move my unit back up in green hexes less they in middle of an ongoing encirclement. Then i do it after the surrender. Some times i could even because all of his units was up north go around south through yellow hexes up to a green hex W of them. Futhering the overall cutting of the AIs retreat route.
Some times its a bit of in the words of a german general. Is it us that are encircling them or them encircling us!
The answer to that is who ever keeps his cools and dont panic, wins IMHO.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Maybe we should just give all LUs, whether starting or later, the +1 Quality bonus?

Sounds like en excellent idea IMO

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[tiredoftryingnames]

"Possible actual bugs.

1. If i understand the following correctly its from the complied rule changes, as per Erik post.
• Emancipation criteria. The USA can now only emancipate when (a) the South has a total European diplomatic levels of 12 or more, and (b) the USA has a positive victory score for Battles won. The CSA can now only emancipate when (a) the CSA has a total victory score of -6 or less and (b) the CSA has a negative Battles victory score. Emancipation criteria are dropped after 1863

Does that meam from jan 63 no crieria is required and you should be able to emancipate no matter what? if so thats bugged. Tested it for both sides. Come jan 63 and the button isnt avaible. Aka u cant do it. Less the button has been moved some where sneaky [;)] "

I would think that means starting in Jan 64 you don't have to meet the criteria. Are you in 1863 or 1864 trying to emancipate?

[christof139]

Emancipation criteria are dropped after 1863

Means just what it states: 'After 1863' = Jan 1, 1864 and all later dates, so this means no Emancipation for 1863 unless you meet the criteria, and after 1863 beginning on jan. 1, 1864 you can Emancipate whether you do or do not meet the criteria.

I was Emancipated in 1967 when I stopped attending Catechism at St. James Holy Roman Catholic Church. [:D][:)]

Chris

[Walloc]

Thx for the replies Chris and Tired. Yes, i was in jan 63, when i tried.
Ok, ill note thats how after its meant to be understod.
So, no there prolly isnt a problem then other than me.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Zakouski]

[align=left][font="times new roman"]One possible bug :
I bought the "gatling gun" to a Union brigade ; in detailed combat, it now cannot fire to more than one hex, althoght it is also equipped with minnie rifle ; when it tries to shoot to a 2-hex away foe, it does zero damage and is fired back     [:(]

The weather was rain.
[/font][/align]

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Zakouski

[align=left][font="times new roman"]One possible bug :
I bought the "gatling gun" to a Union brigade ; in detailed combat, it now cannot fire to more than one hex, althoght it is also equipped with minnie rifle ; when it tries to shoot to a 2-hex away foe, it does zero damage and is fired back     [:(]

The weather was rain.
[/font][/align]

I saw similiar behavior with a unit but didn't look to see what attributes it had. It wouldn't fire at times yet I knew it had a longer range rifle (Minnie or Springfield.) I would try at 2 or more hexes and do no damage, use supply, and take damage. I'll have to go back and see if I still have saved battle with that unit and see what it's attributes are.

Dude