Why the CSA hordes???

[Rexor]

OK, I know there's been talk of this before, so I'm not crazy. Playing a Civil War computer game as the Union and losing because of OVERWHELMING Confederate numbers is simply stupid. It's like playing an American Revolution simulation as the British and losing because of the awesome colonial navy.

I don't know how it's possible, or even why it's been coded into FoF. But the CSA in this game produces legions of young men in uniform that is entirely out of all historical possibility. Mind you, I don't mind being whipped by superior general stats, better elite brigades, or stronger "containers." That, after all, has some basis in history. After all, as the Union, I'm recruiting and mustering and conscripting like hell AS WELL AS outbuilding my opponent and equipping my units with better weapons (because I can afford it), just to keep up with the South's initial martial advantage. But being outnumbered on all fronts as the North--well, I don't really feel like I'm playing a Civil War game anymore.

And that's a shame, because this game has such enormous promise.

To further my point: When I play as the CSA, I can't lose a battle unless I try. In fact, I have never failed to win. And the Union, though always outnumbering me (but just barely), never quite achieves anything like the titanic waves of manhood that I expect from a giant, immigrant-fed, industrialized, urban society. I end up invading the North, they keep sending atrociously undermanned armies against me, and the inevitable happens. I get bored.

So, for a real challenge, I play the Union. And boy, can those Rebels procreate. [X(] Moreover, they're not raw recruits, but experienced brigades with plenty of high morale and firepower. I just don't get it.

I've rarely encountered a game with FoF's extraordinary combination of realism and addictive play. Which is why this point sticks so sorely with me. I want to play the Union, but not if I have to face a Confederacy that bears no resemblance to the Confederacy of history. The AI has enough potency--why the overkill with numbers? I don't want to turn on all kinds of "power" modifiers that will make things totally unrealistic, just so I can get a challenge. i play for the historical thrill, not the challenge. My life has plenty of challenge as is. [;)]

For those that are interested, I always play advanced game, historical (not balanced), Sergeant, with regular population. I can only imagine what the CSA would be capable of in this game with larger populations turned on.... [:(]

[Walloc]

..Never mind found my answer, in the last paragraph.

[General Quarters]

I think those rebel numbers are going to be toned down in the next patch.

[Mus]

I think the issue with the confederacy is simply this: The AI is able to build enormous amounts of camps and can thus reinforce all its brigades to full strength after every turn no matter how severe their losses are.

The number of brigades would be reduced if more population was being eaten up by the camps (because there wouldnt be large waves of mustering and conscription after every April), but also the AI behavior needs to be adjusted so that not so many camps are produced. If you left the behavior as is and bumped up the manpower cost of camps the AI would build a load of camps, drain its cities of population, suffer horribly economically for it, and be gimped as a result.

Its a tricky problem I think, interested to see how its handled.

Also, right now as the USA (historical settings) you can build loads of Artillery and Cavalry brigades armed with superior weapons like Ordnance Rifles and Spencer Carbines/Rifles that the CSA cant even come close to matching. You can also use your Naval superiority to strangle the South economically and land amphibious forces in unprotected areas on the Gulf Coast. Its not that much of a challenge TBH. If you turn it into an infantry vs infantry conflict of course the CSA will win that, they have superior morale and leadership.

[Erik Rutins]

Unfortunately, some of the last changes in the previous update (in an effort to improve Union army sizes) made it too easy for the CSA to rebuild strength, hence the increased CSA army sizes. The next update does indeed tone this down.

[Rexor]

Again, I'd like to reiterate how highly I think of this game. Besides this issue, supply (sort of), and a few clunky elements in the interface, FoF is a milestone IMO. Also, I don't mind a challenge--indeed, getting my butt kicked is always a joy, as it forces me to try harder and try different strategies, which is part of the fun. It's the unrealism of Rebel numbers that I find troubling, that's all. And, I know, it's a game, so there are bound to be unrealistic scews here and there. But this is, in many significant ways, a very sound, believable historical simulation wargame. It deserves better, I guess is my point.

But as you say, Erik, it looks like the next update will handle this. Thanks for the reply!

[Gil R.]

Just to confirm: this problem appeared with the most recent patch as a result of some tweaks, and was most definitely an unintended consequence that we will be dealing with in the upcoming patch.

[Mus]

How are you going to fix it?

[Gil R.]

The current plan involves giving camps a better chance at depleting manpower levels in the cities that have them. Lower manpower means fewer units can be raised, of course. We're testing to make sure this solution doesn't throw off the balance of the game.

[Mus]

Be interesting to see how you balance it out with the AI behavior because I think right now the AI goes kinda nuts with the camp building.

[Rexor]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The current plan involves giving camps a better chance at depleting manpower levels in the cities that have them. Lower manpower means fewer units can be raised, of course. We're testing to make sure this solution doesn't throw off the balance of the game.

Gil,

I hate to ask this question, but I can't resist: Do you have any idea when the update will be available? Please forgive me if this information is available elsewhere (I can't find it) or if you're sick of being asked. [8|]

[Erik Rutins]

Camps now have multiple chances per camp to deplete population and we're testing a chance that halves camp output in a city with zero current population to discourage over-buildling camps in a single city.

[madgamer2]

There are some things you seem to be leaving out that may not be important but.......Yes you can build hordes of all kind of units with great weapons but you lack one thing with cavalry and that is leadership. Its one thing to send the infantry hordes in with the somewhat worse leadership in the North but going to the expense of buying cavalry without a even halfway good leader is useless.
I built them armed them with the best money could buy but lacked even a bad leader, and they were cannon fodder ti the South. It took till Dec 63 before I even got a usable Cavalry leader.
You can also set the power rating for the North to one up from normal and the South one less. Not using the greater population base is also possible. Instead of adding the Brigades piece meal to the armies try building Div. & Corp containers an putting them in say Dayton Ohio and filling up a Corp with 3 DIv. and then adding the Corp or divisions to an army.
The last thing that I have noticed is that using any type of auto combat (letting the computer fight a battle) any type combat is going to lower the odds of a human wining. I had a detailed combat that I won on my own but when I ran it letting the computer use instant combat I lost big time. NOTE: this was AFTER the computer rebs retreated. In detail combat I was able to win battle after battle by having more men involved by taking advantage of the "Will to Win" factor. If you take Lynchburg and/or Petersburg and get the Rebs to attack you then you get the bonus in detailed combat.
Even with these tactics there is the problem of the South producing so many
men. You can also put a great deal into camps in smaller areas and use your larger cities to produce your units. and use them same tactic. Researching a lot of good weapons early doesn't help much till you can get some good leadership and experience first.

Hope this rambling helps
Madgamer

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Rexor

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The current plan involves giving camps a better chance at depleting manpower levels in the cities that have them. Lower manpower means fewer units can be raised, of course. We're testing to make sure this solution doesn't throw off the balance of the game.

Gil,

I hate to ask this question, but I can't resist: Do you have any idea when the update will be available? Please forgive me if this information is available elsewhere (I can't find it) or if you're sick of being asked. [8|]

We still need at least a week of testing, and I've learned not to make specific predictions. But we're definitely making progress.

[cerosenberg]

Will the patch include "fixes' for the immortal gunboats and victory points?
 

[Gil R.]

Don't know yet about gunboats. The issue's not forgotten, though. Victory Points does appear to be fixed.

[Oliver Heindorf]

DOH ! And I thought all my skills were gone....and I wondered about those hordes as well...
any clue when this gets fixed ?

and do I need to do a re-start then ???

[Oliver Heindorf]

any news on this issue ?

it really ruined my game ( I have the same settings as the author of this thread ) and I want to play on [:'(]

[Gil R.]

The hordes are definitely gone. The delay in releasing the patch at this point is mainly over the issue of whether the forces both sides now have are acceptable. Just as we don't want too many CSA troops, we don't want too few, either. I think we're definitely close based on my own playing (20+ hours worth over the past few days), but am waiting for more feedback, since different testers play different scenarios, different settings, different styles, etc.

[Oliver Heindorf]

gr8  ! [&o] thats good news [:)]