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

[chicago227]

Hey Walloc, Ive never played as the yankees. I think the Union drives into Rebel lands are pretty good, but also as the CSA you really don't have alot of troops to move around w/o leaving Virginia open and encircle.  So far I've seen the Yankees attack West virginia (Kenewha), Fredricksburg, Memphis and northen Arkanasas before Nov 61' I can't wait for the snow to fall.

[christof139]

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.

That's a bummer!! Get a Gatling Gun and it limits the Brigade to a shooting range of one hex. That is a bug for sure.

Chris

[Gil R.]

One of the main changes made to detailed combat for this patch involved the way that damage is calculated. What you're seeing with the Gatling guns and those other weapons is almost certainly related to this, and can be fixed. Thanks for the report!

[Zakouski]

Another point :

It seems that the indication for the skirmishers's deployment is not accurate : many times, I tried to deploy them with a 97% success indicated, then... failure again and again. Or is there some hidden modifier ?

[ericbabe]

Rapid Fire guns should never decrease damage at any range; the code for this looks OK at first glance.  Try turning on the attack report and you can see what's reducing your damage.

Problem with skirmisher percentages has been reported.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Zakouski

Another point :

It seems that the indication for the skirmishers's deployment is not accurate : many times, I tried to deploy them with a 97% success indicated, then... failure again and again. Or is there some hidden modifier ?

Ah yet another point I was begining to wonder on... I had a battle where I tried to deploy a number of units repeatedly to skirmish mode (they were all over 70%) and they failed most of the time. There were about 5 units all at 71-80% and all failed at least twice before I was able to get them each to go to skirmish mode. I was determined to get them into skirmish so I kept trying (I love pounding square pegs in round holes...) Never used skirmish mode again in other battles since it didn't seem to work first time.

Dude

[Johnus]

With respect to AI's reckless northern invasions, until it is fixed, how about a "house rule" not to take advantage of same by "cutting off" the invader. After all, neither McClellan nor Meade cut behind Lee when he went north to Antietam and Gettysburg. Rather, they followed him north and fought him where he went. Nor did they dash toward Richmond, the other way to beat the AI.

As to a fix, ericbabe, how about the ability for a cut off invading force to be able to retreat into or through enemy occupied or controlled provinces. (They wouldn't effect control of the province, they would just be able to co-exist in said province, possibly with a small loss penalty, until they could get home.) I can't think of an instance (other than the end at Appomattox) in which a Civil War Army was cut off and destroyed or forced to surrender.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

With respect to AI's reckless northern invasions, until it is fixed, how about a "house rule" not to take advantage of same by "cutting off" the invader. After all, neither McClellan nor Meade cut behind Lee when he went north to Antietam and Gettysburg. Rather, they followed him north and fought him where he went. Nor did they dash toward Richmond, the other way to beat the AI.

Thats certainly a way to play and reasonble enough. One problem I see is that it was sieging cities and taken them behind ur lines. That can possibly mean alot of lost production if u not allowed to "stop" it. It naturally also dropped of some units in the city so its not problem free to take back. if it run around doing it to more cities. That is specualitive tho, since i killed it off before it had chances to done more than 1 city.


Btw i can report that atm im playing a Commign fury scn as US. A first. In that the AI in the East has acted much more sensibly. Leaving the ANV in NV, but still reacted to my moves into NV. Real classy AI. No deep raid. It also beat me in a HW once.

West was bit more like pre pacth tho. After destryoing the initial forces it starts out with. Was done by start to mid 62 and game now in late 63. i havent seen any new formation of a field army, other than a single or 2 division with 1-2 brigades in. So it been a city mob up since.
I did emancipate giving it "free" brigades. They seemed to go into forts and cities, not into the number of empthy containers it has.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Walloc
West was bit more like pre pacth tho. After destryoing the initial forces it starts out with. Was done by start to mid 62 and game now in late 63. i havent seen any new formation of a field army, other than a single or 2 division with 1-2 brigades in. So it been a city mob up since.
I did emancipate giving it "free" brigades. They seemed to go into forts and cities, not into the number of empthy containers it has.

Yes, I agree - I think it's putting too much priority on garrisons right now. This is also making it a bit weaker initially as it puts off expanding its field armies making some of those early victories a bit easier if a player is very aggressive and skilled.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie
As to a fix, ericbabe, how about the ability for a cut off invading force to be able to retreat into or through enemy occupied or controlled provinces. (They wouldn't effect control of the province, they would just be able to co-exist in said province, possibly with a small loss penalty, until they could get home.) I can't think of an instance (other than the end at Appomattox) in which a Civil War Army was cut off and destroyed or forced to surrender.

This is the way the game worked originally, but beta testers were frustrated when the AI would retreat further into their territory when they had it surrounded on the other sides. I've noticed that it is maybe too easy to cutoff the AI's forces, so maybe we should go back to the old system.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Yes, I agree - I think it's putting too much priority on garrisons right now. This is also making it a bit weaker initially as it puts off expanding its field armies making some of those early victories a bit easier if a player is very aggressive and skilled.

Is it still doing this? I tried to add code that limited the AI to adding no more than 1 bde per city except for those that start with two (oh, but maybe this code doesn't check for forts???) I'll take a look at this.

[Walloc]

Ill have to say it still is. To booth both cities and forts. Just taken Memphis and Jackson. One had 3 and other 2 units. Its was both garrison and numbered brigades. Yes forts has more than 1 unit usually too, but as far as i have noticed. For example the "free" brigades gotten from enmancipation all went into cities not forts. Same is what im seeing with what i percieve to be newly build units. This is playing with FoW so i cant be 100% on this, but its how it seems to me. In another game. i think it even had 4 units in a city. Had 7 or 8 small green blocks showing strength. Could be 3, cant say i remember it totally.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Greyhunterlp]

Is enemy generals dying hidden from you?

I just fought a desisive battle (120k a side, 30k losses to me, 17k losses to the CSA) and had 6 generals killed and two wounded (of of which die right after the battle, the others still critical). but didn't see any losses for the confederacy, in fact despite having 4 battles so far with 40k and up casualties i've yet to see an enemy general bite the dust - the only losses I know of are the 4 generals that surrendered to me after i captured the division they were with.

is this normal, or am I just having a very bad spell of luck?

[Walloc]

Are u playing QC or HW?

My experience is almost all HW.
Yes, I have seen far more enemy generals die then my own. I tend to shelter all corps+ generals in units behind the line or on less exposed units. I've captured lots too.
Since the math behind favors killing a general in smaller units some times that can be used as an tactic. High loss on a small unit, with a general attached.
For example the AI some times attach generals to supply wagons. Since they tend to take high casulties thats an excellent way to go for generals. If that is ur desire.
Other than that sharpshooters gets a bonus on killing generals.
Do u have any / do the AI? if it has lots of that nad u few to non that could explain some of it.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Greyhunterlp]

Yeah its HW. should have said that.
so just a run of bad luck then, or the CSA are stacked with sharpshooters. It would be nice if i could shelter my generals, but i'm actually outnumbered by the CSA aroudn virgina - I think I've got to many men in the west. and they have too few.

[Walloc]

Do u attach ur generals to small units? 1500 or less?
Again the smaller ur units are the higher the chance to lose a general. So another thing to do is to attach to leased exposed unit and/or largest units. I use the G key to switch around my generals numerous times during a battle.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Ironclad]

I often attach a valued C in C to a supply caisson to keep him safe. (Think of it as a HQ unit rather than hiding amongst the supplies!).

[Greyhunterlp]

yeah I think it was just a run of luck.
Got Spencer rifles, armed up almost everyone with them, and went from loosing with even number to a win being outnumbered 2:1 (it was close though, ) to -1) killing jackson and lee.
Bloody Hellfire those spencer rifles are nasty.