Testing of Patch 1.10.5

[Erik Rutins]

Gil,

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Okay, I'll reveal my thoughts here, having tried to avoid leading the witness.

I'm afraid you were quite transparent. [;)]

I've been thinking for some time that a modest change -- specifically, giving each camp just four chances to eat up population rather than five -- would be an improvement. It wouldn't be enough of a change for the hordes to be able to return, but at the same time it would help the CSA to produce a few more brigades each year and have a bit more money/resources. Based on what you all are seeing, does that seem helpful, unnecessary, or bad?

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but only because it's a minor tweak - anything more does risk allowing the hordes to return. However, I don't think it would help much either though. Ultimately we're talking about people playing the Advanced Game at what's defined as the "historical" difficulty level having a challenging time with the South. I still think that's fine, personally.

If a change must be made, I'd go with the one suggested a few posts above. Tweaking the effects of depleted population back a bit at lower levels seems like the best change to me as well, as it would keep the armies historically sized while allowing a bit more of an economy when the player uses up the population. That seems more novice-friendly as I think new players tend not to pay attention to careful population usage or planned camp-building as much, but they also don't need more brigades to manage.

Regards,

- Erik

[dolphinsfan9910]

Bill H.,

Southern boy myself from Jacksonville, FL. I hear you about the agressiveness of the Union. I countered that by using it against them. It's a long process though. Fight every little battle you can with odds in your favor and capture as much men as you can.

I would like to see less of the agressiveness though. And reversely, I would like to see the South make better attempts at campaigning north.

Viva la Dixie!

[Houtje]

A small change might be ok. I do think, however, that the 'population'-issue is tied to the union aggression level. Let me explain: I can now only support two sizeable CSA armies, but I think that will be enough, because although the Union builds and conscripts a lot of new brigades, I (like dolphinsfan said) capture loads of their brig's. I must have captured at least 30 of them already. I don't really NEED any more troops. Now, if the Union were more cautious, they would have massive armies around the middle of 1862, forcing the CSA to increase their standing army as well: so IF the union early aggression can be toned down, it is a very good idea to allow the CSA to create and support more brigades. 

[Gil R.]

My thinking is that toning down the Union's aggression would probably be a nice little amount of work for Eric, and we don't want to delay the patch by messing with the AI. (There is no more surefire way of delaying a patch than reworking some element of the AI, as experience teaches!) For that reason, it strikes me as not a bad thing to give the CSA the modest boost I propose, until such time as we can alter the AI a bit.

[JoePirulo]

Gil,
I was thinking if it´s not better that the april population boom occur after the camps population consuming phase, in that way the cities will - in most cases - have at least one population point... Thanks for the excellent support you are giving to all of us gamers. Best regards,

Max.

[dolphinsfan9910]

I'd like to add what Houtje was talking about. The Union armies seem to send Divisions against my corps and army's, which in turn I capture. Should the Union form Armies themselves, which I would image they should, it would be different. I seem to play more small scale battles than larger ones.

[Ironclad]

The problem is that the Union AI tends to strategically attack from the start, particularly in the east, with the sort of sustained ferocity that didn't occur historically until 1864 when the eastern armies were being driven forward by Grant and Union resources were probably at a peak and able to (just) sustain the massive losses involved. This was at a time when the CSA forces were beginning a long decline.

Presumably the CSA AI adopts a similar approach which probably better matches its historic early superiority in troop quality and command.

This doesn't seem patch or difficulty related and I suspect that a solution may have to wait for FOF2.

One answer may be to impose a defensive approach on any Union AI force (particularly any army) that is below a certain percentage level in terms of its notional full establishment strength and also requiring a certain level of supply. Assuming that it doesn't cheat by keeping only full strength units and disbanding others. A tightening up of the supply rules would also be beneficial since its very difficult to get out of supply at present.

Hopefully this would help to recreate the early years historic pauses when defeated armies recovered their strength and built up supplies for a resumption of the offensive.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

The problem is that the Union AI tends to strategically attack from the start, particularly in the east, with the sort of sustained ferocity that didn't occur historically until 1864 when the eastern armies were being driven forward by Grant and Union resources were probably at a peak and able to (just) sustain the massive losses involved.

When playing CSA I find that plays right into my hands. The AI aggressively attacks with an army that isnt ready to fight and I pull off big victories in the east with the Cannae like results that eluded Lee historically.

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Presumably the CSA AI adopts a similar approach which probably better matches its historic early superiority in troop quality and command.

Not really what I see when I play Union. Usually when I play Union the CSA AI puts about 80K troops under Jackson and parks it on Richmond and then moves several divisions, including new musters, under its better leaders west under Lee, Longstreet, Stuart, etc.

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

A tightening up of the supply rules would also be beneficial since its very difficult to get out of supply at present.

Hopefully this would help to recreate the early years historic pauses when defeated armies recovered their strength and built up supplies for a resumption of the offensive.

Assuming the AI could be properly adjusted to handle it correctly I think that would be a great way to get a more realistic operational tempo.

Just increase the supply costs of being the victor and increase them slightly more for being the loser in normal battles and then double that for decisive battles. That would require little pauses for the supply situation to improve between clashes.

[dolphinsfan9910]

When playing CSA I find that plays right into my hands. The AI aggressively attacks with an army that isnt ready to fight and I pull off big victories in the east with the Cannae like results that eluded Lee historically.


Presumably the CSA AI adopts a similar approach which probably better matches its historic early superiority in troop quality and command.[/quote]

Not really what I see when I play Union. Usually when I play Union the CSA AI puts about 80K troops under Jackson and parks it on Richmond and then moves several divisions, including new musters, under its better leaders west under Lee, Longstreet, Stuart, etc.



I couldn't agree more with how the game works. CSA AI parks in Richmond when they could push north. Union attacks in Division or light corp. This is starting to get bland.