Testing of Patch 1.10.5

[Gil R.]

Randomness beats predictability. That's my thinking. Eric might have other reasons, though.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: cesteman

The camp issue has to do with the CSA hordes when playing the USA. It's just one of the ideas that came out for trying to stop massive CSA troops showing up. Cheers.

Not my question. My question is why is it desirable for the amount of population consumed to fluctuate wildly rather than being a fixed amount?

Well, you didn't really read my post then. 90% of the time between 0-2 doesn't really seem that wild a fluctuation.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Joram

Well, you didn't really read my post then. 90% of the time between 0-2 doesn't really seem that wild a fluctuation.

I read it. 0 to 2 is a bit more of a fluctuation than I like, especially considering the small cities on the CSA side.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Randomness beats predictability. That's my thinking. Eric might have other reasons, though.

Sorry, I like predictable.

[;)]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I thought camp usage was removed before the population increase was added in? Might have gotten that mixed up.

The cities are filled with the new population and then the camp usage removes it.

[Gil R.]

Of course, the flip side is that if one is playing the USA and the CSA's population is too badly depleted by the camps, the CSA might be easily beaten because the AI is often aggressive and after a few attacks by the ANV it will have a lot of depleted brigades and no sources of new brigades. If camps aren't removing as much population, that means the CSA can put up more of a fight -- without the hordes returning. That's the other aspect of the balance that we need to achieve.

Any thoughts on this issue?

[cesteman]

Taking from the camp population was the idea behind eliminating the hordes. What else could be done? By taking from the popuation, the AI can't produce the huge numbers of troops. Cheers.

[Houtje]

I'm playing CSA, Coming Fury (unbalanced), difficulty is one easier than first sergeant (I forgot the name), but with USA power +1. Now mid 1862 and the south hasn't lost an area yet. Army of NVA matches Potomac's 85000 men, Army of Miss.' 45000 matches Army of the Tenn., while in Missouri a single Division under price roams free in the union rear. Three other divisions guard Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans. All brigades have minie rifle or better, and many have extra abilities, like medical or brig. artillery. I think I can hold on for a while longer (I defeated USA in 20+ battles already), but my camps eat all my new population (I have 12 camps, I think). That means that building another army, like that of Tennessee, will deplete my cities even further. Besides that, with pay-for-support on, my treasury will suffer, since you pay per brigade. I have to say it feels rather historical - if the Union builds another army in, say, Kentucky, I will have to strip my coastal defences, deplete some more cities and take a hit on my earnings. Even while I could still be winning battles, the war will then devastate my economy just by taking it to a higher level, which is exactly what happened in the south, I think.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Joram

Well, you didn't really read my post then. 90% of the time between 0-2 doesn't really seem that wild a fluctuation.

I read it. 0 to 2 is a bit more of a fluctuation than I like, especially considering the small cities on the CSA side.

Fair enough. I am sure there is no answer that will satisfy everyone however.

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Randomness beats predictability. That's my thinking. Eric might have other reasons, though.

Sorry, I like predictable.

[;)]

Again, that's a perfectly fair opinion but if you always knew what was going to happen, I don't see how that's challenging.

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I thought camp usage was removed before the population increase was added in? Might have gotten that mixed up.

The cities are filled with the new population and then the camp usage removes it.

If that's true, then that is backwards but I agree with Erik on what I think it's happening. Perhaps worth another look!

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Joram

Again, that's a perfectly fair opinion but if you always knew what was going to happen, I don't see how that's challenging.

Challenging? I dont see how its less challenging to go to a fixed cost that is equal to an average random cost. If anything it just removes an element of luck from the population consumption.

I have gamed an april save a bunch of times in a row and sometimes been really lucky and barely lost any population, sometimes have lost a ton. If the former you have CSA Hordes and if the later your economy gets hosed.

[Joram]

Well, I sympathize but I don't really agree. I think luck is an integral part of any game. But I'm not the one you need to convince either. However, you made me think about the variance a bit more ...

Since you have that save, and you're willing to spend the time to do so, it would be interesting to see what your pop depletion is for several trials compared to the number of camps you have. The variation you see is naturally greater the more camps you have so it is quite easy to see a situation with 10 camps depleting 2 each and 10 camps depleting 0 each could produce wildly different results. This is the probably where you are seeing the big variation and it's a good point. One I hadn't considered as I was focusing on one camp.

I also forgot to mention though the expected value for the CSA is actually less than that of the Union for no other reason that the CSA has smaller cities like you mentioned and you can't lose more than the city can hold anyway! So by that reasoning, the USA is actually being dinged more than the CSA.

But then the fact that we are all missing is what is the probability of refilling population which would be illuminating in it's interaction.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Joram

But then the fact that we are all missing is what is the probability of refilling population which would be illuminating in it's interaction.

That fluctuates as well. So two skewed rolls coinciding can throw it to an extreme either way.

[dolphinsfan9910]

I like the game, it keeps getting better. I would like to see stronger AI campaining out of the Confederate Army of Virginia. They seem to stay in Richmond / Virginia to much when a strong campaign North would do them better.

Sorry, Wish list???

[dolphinsfan9910]

Population issues for the North, I hadn't noticed any and I've played 2 games so far with the Beta. Most of my cities had at least half their population most of the game. Many of the smaller cities did not recover much, but then why would they. If needed, I could have produced about 120,000 + Army with what I had in my cities up North. No problem there.

I havn't tried the South yet, so I will get back to you on that.

[dolphinsfan9910]

Gil,

I'd like to reply to those complaining about the population issues for the South and lack of manpower latter on. I think the game is historically accurate. I just read a historical fiction trilogy by Newt Gingrich and a Civil war historian in which General Lee pulls back from Gettysburg, fights on better ground, and deals a devestating blow to the Army of the Potomac. They fight the Army of Potomac again in Maryland and deal another devestating blow, take Baltimore, all but destroying the Army of Potomac. Grant comes east with most of his western forces (Vicksburg), pulls everything from Charleston, most of New Orleans, and uses the 20,000 plus garrison from Washington. The new Army of Sasquena (sorry for the spelling) in the Eastern theatre is about 85,000 strong. Sherman is still in Chattanooga with 70,000 men. Beauregard comes north with a division from Charleston, and Jeff Davis provides 10,000 new recruits. That's all the South could muster at that time. In the end the South gets beat by overwhelming odds despite massive defeats for the Nouth.

Point is if you want a historically accurate game, you got to fight those odds. Grant knew the south had no more men and he did, which is why his tactics were to bleed the South.

So to those comlaining about the population issues, the game as is is accurate. Maybe you need to hone your tactics and strategy. If the CSA goes blow for blow against the North, you will loose. Do what ever you can to preserve manpower as the CSA. If you want to be able to go blow for blow then adjust your settings. The South can't afford 10,000 casualties to take a city like the north can.

Similarly, when I play with the North I bleed the South beginning in 1863.


Brad

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Joram

For those of you sufficiently geeky like me to be interested in the distribution of per camp usage each Spring. The distribution does not vary wildly in my opinion - it will be between 0 and 2 for 90% of the time. You can also calculate the expected value from this table which as I mentioned before is 1.25. Total up all your camps and if the pop usage varies a lot from the # camps * 1.25, then maybe there is an issue.

0 Pop
24%

1 Pop
40%

2 Pop
26%

3 Pop
9%

4 Pop
1%

5 Pop
0%

This was the distribution I calculated when we adjusted the rule. Camps are still the most efficient way to turn population into troop strength; the new rule just lessens the gap between the efficiency of camps and the efficiency of building new units. As the distribution shows, it's not a wildly unpredictable loss -- the expectation is very close to 1. We did this because we thought 1 was too low and 2 was too high and there's no such thing as fractional population. The expected value now is 1.19, and that extra bit seems to make a big difference in keeping down the "CSA hordes."

As to whether all this makes the game too hard for the CSA now, I'd love to hear more input on this. Our beta testers had a fairly clear consensus that the game was too easy for the CSA, even with the new camps rule, but that's only a small opinion pool. In general, with FOF and COG, I've found its very hard to balance game difficulty. With COG our veteran beta testers were all giving me ideas to make the game harder, then a month or so before we released we got a new crop of beta testers, and many of those thought the game was too hard, started giving me ideas for ways to make it easier. I think the best thing we can do is to try to gather as many opinions as we can.

[wzh55]

dolphinsfan9910,

Good day to you sir. I guess I am the one who can be accused of complaining. However, as you can see from my previous posts, I whole-heartedly agree that the game is historically accurate from the standpoint of the Confederacy and its population issue, etc. My only complaint is that the difficulty level I have been playing at (1st Sargeant) should be more towards the mid range of the game's difficulty levels. I only say this for the betterment of the game as regards new persons buying and playing a game that is historically accurate. Most people would expect the lower difficulty levels to be "easy" and when they see that's its no walk in the park, may be frustrated enough to quit playing, what I and you seemingly, consider one the best ACW games for quite some time. Gil did mention what I feel is part of the "problem", the agressiveness of the Union AI. I know historically they did push forward plenty, but in game, they continuously attack every turn until the Confederates are depleted, economically and manpower wise. I know that did happen, but took longer and was due to many factors including the Confederates trying to take the war to the Union (Gettysburg, etc.). So maybe, just maybe the Union AI could be toned down agressively speaking, just a bit. Then I could maybe attempt the trip into Pennsylvania and even change history. And, by the way, I am a southerner from ole Virginia! (maybe that's part of it also)

[ericbabe]

Complaining's OK. I say that now... [:)]

We could give the player bonus levels of April re-population on the lower levels to offset the effects of camps? I agree it's important to fine-tune the difficulty levels so they're just right.

[wzh55]

Eric,

Do what you think is necessary to continue making this game better. That was my wish when I made the initial post regarding my concerns. Up to this point you folks at WCS and Matrix have listened maybe too well to your customers. The game may be as accurate and balanced as possible now. My only desire is to ensure that other people who purchase this game enjoy it as much as I have and continue to. That is why I mentioned the point about the difficulty level needing adjustment (for new customers / gamer players), as I am enjoying the difficulty level I am playing at. Looking forward to the expansion and completely new complaints.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

We could give the player bonus levels of April re-population on the lower levels to offset the effects of camps? I agree it's important to fine-tune the difficulty levels so they're just right.

Maybe just make depopulation have less of an effect on the amount of money a city produces? This way you wouldnt see the infantry hordes but might see the CSA AI able to do more (like make more arty and cav) with the somewhat gimped economy they seem to get more often now.

[ericbabe]

That might be good.  New players can turn off the effects that population has on money production, and I think this is off when you play the game at the Basic and Intermediate levels though.

[Gil R.]

Okay, I'll reveal my thoughts here, having tried to avoid leading the witness. 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?