Coming Fury Scenario Comments

[Gil R.]

cristof139,
I just did keyword searches for "saboteur" and "sabotage" in the FOF forum, and the only time that "saboteur" pops up is in the "ETA on the Patch" thread when you made a similar comment about being accused of being a saboteur, and the word "sabotage" never comes up in reference to you. So, much as I hate to wade into this argument, I believe you are wrongly recalling whatever Erik might have written.

Also, knowing Erik personally, I should say that I cannot think of a person less likely to be paranoid or suffering from any other significant personality disorder. Seeing as how he makes his living in the world of computer games, that's actually quite a statement.

I know that Erik, Eric and I all value your input on guns and numerous other aspects of FOF -- can't we keep this to being a discussion of how to improve the game even more, rather than how to improve each other's character?

[Erik Rutins]

Chris,

ORIGINAL: christof139
Rethink what you say to people and quit being in denial and acting like a little kid.
You said I was attempting to sabotage FoF.
You have convenient amnesia. I have met yout type before. Seems the little boy ruffled egos and behind the scenes backstabbing is alive and well on the inet.

Prove it. Post a link to where I said that, go ahead. If you can't prove it, then I expect a prompt and complete apology.

Regards,

- Erik

[christof139]

Prove it. Post a link to where I said that, go ahead. If you can't prove it, then I expect a prompt and complete apology.

Regards,

- Erik

You will get no apology from me. The post that you stated your little sly and ridiculous remark is back in the February or earlier posts. I remember it well.

You have convenient amnesia and I am through with your insults, etc.

Who in the heck are supposed to be?? You talk to people as if they are complete dummies etc., well the joke is on you.

Like I said, I have met many self-righteous arrogant types like yourself in the past and it is the same story and same defensive nature about everything.

You apologize since it was you with your remark to a paying customer that that paying customer was trying to sabotage FoF, and that paying custoemr was myself.

You don't demand anything of me bubba, and you should grow-up a bit and quit insulting people and forgetting what you say. Knowing you, I wouldn't doubt that you deleted the post anyway.

I relegate this affair to the chicken-do-do heap whence the chicken-do-do originated from to begin with, here and with you etc.

See you later your most Royal Highness, Chris

[christof139]

cristof139,
I just did keyword searches for "saboteur" and "sabotage" in the FOF forum, and the only time that "saboteur" pops up is in the "ETA on the Patch" thread when you made a similar comment about being accused of being a saboteur, and the word "sabotage" never comes up in reference to you. So, much as I hate to wade into this argument, I believe you are wrongly recalling whatever Erik might have written.

Also, knowing Erik personally, I should say that I cannot think of a person less likely to be paranoid or suffering from any other significant personality disorder. Seeing as how he makes his living in the world of computer games, that's actually quite a statement.

I know that Erik, Eric and I all value your input on guns and numerous other aspects of FOF -- can't we keep this to being a discussion of how to improve the game even more, rather than how to improve each other's character?

Well Gil, I was accused by ann eric or Erik here of wanting to sabotage FoF. The post was in fevbruary or before.

Personally, I was jumped on for not any apparent reason and that is obvious from those past posts.

I don't know who you people think you are, but it seems you have a problem with a lot of your paying customers and have put yourselves on some sort of pedestal of all assuming knowledge.

I was quite friendly and even tried to be a bit humorous, but to not any avail. As for the ACW, well sorry, I see that many have moved on and it is time fro me to also quit wasting my time.

I hate to inform you but there are many people with knowledge of the ACW are that are extremely more pleasant and reciprocating in conversation, although in most inet groups this is a semi-rarity.

I don't have any respect for some of the nonsense and those responsible for that nonsense that occurred here.

An ex-customer, Chris

[Gil R.]

Well Gil, I was accused by ann eric or Erik here of wanting to sabotage FoF. The post was in fevbruary or before.

Well, this sentence might explain what's going on here. You might be remembering a comment by ericbabe, not Erik Rutins. I vaguely recall a post by Eric some time ago in which he asked that someone (maybe you, maybe not) not make claims that some statistics in the game were wildly incorrect without backing up those claims by providing a reference. The reason, as Eric explained, was that our business can be hurt by negative comments that circulate about our products. Now, when those negative comments are accurate, we have no objections to their circulating -- sure, we might not like it, but if we screw up then our customers are more than entitled to complain about it, and it's our job to fix our mistakes. But if a criticism is itself mistaken, then it hurts our business UNDESERVEDLY. Since FOF came out, more than a few negative comments about the game -- and here I am in no way referring to comments you have made -- were made by people who, to be blunt, didn't know what they were talking about. Most commonly, these people hadn't bothered to read the manual and therefore didn't understand what was happening, and jumped to the conclusion that our game was flawed and let everyone out there know this. That's one example of a way that our game's reputation can be hurt undeservedly. It is quite possible that a month or two ago you were the one who made a critical comment about the game and were challenged by Eric -- NOT Erik -- to back it up, since if you were not basing your statements on documented facts you would have been, for lack of a better word, sabotaging the game's reputation. Now, that might not have been your intention -- in fact, I have never for a second thought that you had the goal of hurting our game's reputation, and you have made more comments than I can count that were intended to improve it -- but it is possible that you unintentionally were doing so nonetheless. Of course, (if you were the person to whom Eric responded) if what you wrote was accurate, you were perfectly justified in writing it; if you were wrong, then you would not have been; either way, something you wrote might have made Eric concerned that you were attacking the game unjustifiably. Eric may have been wrong in surmising that, but as I hope you can understand, there have been a lot of misinformed negative appraisals of the game, and it's sometimes hard to discern who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

I'm not going to take the time to read through dozens of threads and hundreds of posts to prove it, but the smart money is on Eric having challenged one or more of your claims and asked for documentation before he made changes to the guns.txt file or some such thing, and you then confused Eric with Erik in your posts above.

Just a possibility for you to consider.

[Erik Rutins]

Chris,

ORIGINAL: christof139
You will get no apology from me. The post that you stated your little sly and ridiculous remark is back in the February or earlier posts. I remember it well.
You have convenient amnesia and I am through with your insults, etc.
Who in the heck are supposed to be?? You talk to people as if they are complete dummies etc., well the joke is on you.
Like I said, I have met many self-righteous arrogant types like yourself in the past and it is the same story and same defensive nature about everything.
You apologize since it was you with your remark to a paying customer that that paying customer was trying to sabotage FoF, and that paying custoemr was myself.

Given your behavior towards me in this thread, I didn't expect anything different, but let me help you out a bit here. After your comment about "Eric or Erik", I took a look back through the threads...

Why don't you read this thread:

tm.asp?m=1385183&mpage=1&key=&#1386526

How interesting. Eric Babe (not me) commented there that you should tone down your posts criticizing the game. You got up in arms and called him rude and pathetic as well as launching a multi-point criticism. All I did was close the thread politely before it got further out of hand. What was the result? Eric still listened and incorporated the 15 inch Dahlgren in the new update. Then, a month later, you jump on me for posting what he posted, which I did not.

Is there another thread you were thinking of? If so, I'll keep looking, but I know it won't have my name on it. My guess is this fits the bill and it's you who has a memory issue, not me.

You don't demand anything of me bubba, and you should grow-up a bit and quit insulting people and forgetting what you say. Knowing you, I wouldn't doubt that you deleted the post anyway.
I relegate this affair to the chicken-do-do heap whence the chicken-do-do originated from to begin with, here and with you etc. See you later your most Royal Highness, Chris

You just don't know when to quit. When I ask for proof, you just accuse me of arrogance and bad memory.

When I made a perfectly reasonable reply in this thread commenting that the stats in the game weren't that far from what you were suggesting, you jumped all over me, then started accusing me of posts I didn't make. As near as I can tell, Eric Babe made the post that you are apparently still holding a grudge over and I can't see that he didn't have good reason to post it then.

It takes a lot of patience to deal with people who throw boulders when they are living in glass houses. I suggest you consider that you've been busy attacking the wrong guy and going way overboard in doing so. Frankly, if you had been attacking another customer instead of me, you'd have already had an official warning by now, but I can take the heat in order to get you to realize your mistake. How about an apology now?

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: christof139
Well Gil, I was accused by ann eric or Erik here of wanting to sabotage FoF. The post was in fevbruary or before.
Personally, I was jumped on for not any apparent reason and that is obvious from those past posts.

I posted the thread I found, which doesn't support your characterization that I attacked you. If there's another one, take the time to post the link if you're going to make the claim.

I don't know who you people think you are, but it seems you have a problem with a lot of your paying customers and have put yourselves on some sort of pedestal of all assuming knowledge.

Not at all, we've been soliciting advice for months now and have made a host of changes based on customer feedback, including your own.

I was quite friendly and even tried to be a bit humorous, but to not any avail. As for the ACW, well sorry, I see that many have moved on and it is time fro me to also quit wasting my time.
I hate to inform you but there are many people with knowledge of the ACW are that are extremely more pleasant and reciprocating in conversation, although in most inet groups this is a semi-rarity.
I don't have any respect for some of the nonsense and those responsible for that nonsense that occurred here.

Given your behavior towards me in this thread, I can't say I would be that sorry to see you move on. As someone who was attacked without justification, I'm not exactly feeling friendly towards you right now. However, you've posted some informative posts and helped us out, so keep this in mind: the decision on whether to be constructive or destructive is entirely your own. In ACW terms, you seem to be a commander who attacks before the scouting is properly done and by doing that you can easily end up in a situation you did not expect.

The fact is and I hope you realize this, that you attacked me based on a mistaken memory and a bad assumption. It would show good faith for you to acknowledge this, stop your attacks and contribute constructively. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then I'll just say farewell.

Regards,

- Erik

[ericbabe]

Weapon damage at a particular range is not just a function of how far a weapon can shoot -- it does include factors like reloading time and weapon reliability and weapon accuracy.

[ericbabe]

As for accusations that you were sabotaging FOF, I reckon I made nothing of the sort. Many people were saying very negative things about FOF by way of comparing it to Harry Turtledove-like science fiction and similar, and I chose not to respond to any of that. However I was a bit dismayed to read in one of your posts that you seemed to think that this sort of language was actually a form of constructive criticism and was helping us out -- this notion did prompt a response from me as it took me quite by surprise. By saying "posts like yours seem more like attempts to smear our game" I did not mean that you were attempting to smear our game, I meant simply that posts of this sort simply have this appearance. I made a poor choice of verb as "seem" has five different meanings:

1.to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning.
2.to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment, etc.: It seems to me that someone is calling.
3.to appear to exist: There seems no need to go now.
4.to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
5.to give the outward appearance of being or to pretend to be: He only seems friendly because he wants you to like him.

I meant something like 1/5, as this is how I most often use the word "seem", but you seem to have misunderstood my choice of words as meaning 2 or 3. It was a poor choice of words on my part because ambiguous. I do not think you are attempting to sabotage FOF, and I regret the poor choice of words that may have given this impression.

[gunnergoz]

There is such a thing as having more than your share of posts in a forum.  I am glad to see enthusiastic participation in this forum, but there is such a thing as moderation in frequency and tenor of postings.  Otherwise it seems hijiacked into a personal blog.  Just my 2 bits... 

[sadja]

May be to get the forum back on track.

I know that there has been a lot of bitching about gov, camps and such. I was one of them. I am bias and I like to play the Rebels.

That said I think this game has tried to capture many of the strategic problems that faced the South.

1. Manpower: The south was always having trouble with manpower and was mostly had less troops on the field than the north. Many brigades were low strength and sometimes were not much more than equal to a couple offull strengh companies. I think the camps are OK but I would like to see the recuitment cost of new brigades be cheeper and come in at about 70% strength. If you have more brigades then the camp reinforcements will have more to spread around. I would like to see the reinforcements to be spread out more. If a brigade is eligible for 400 may be it should only get half that.

A player will have to do a little more force conservation in battles if it can. If it had earlier in the war it might have had a bigger effect on the north. When the south went into the defensive mode after gettysburge the north paid dearly in causlities.

Gov. I think this part captures the real proble of the South. The most important thing a goverment can have in war is a strong central goverment. This is the main reason the south secceded. It believed in states rights. The orginal goverment of the US was only an articals of confederation and the constitution went way beyond the the tweaking that was suppose to be done to the articals.

The governers requests and impressment risks show how hard the Central gov had with dealing with the war. It was never total war with the South. Early on half the blockade runners cargoes were non military support cargos. The navies on the river had State gunboats, army gunboats and navy gunboats.

That all said I think some adjustments to the request can be made. The huge 200 money requsts just will not be honored.
Some of the prices should be lowered or revenue from non cities could be raised. I don't for sure want be some balance can be done without resorting to higher economies or population.

Please excuse all the miss spelling, it is a bad subject for me and I do this posts as a stream of conscience.

[sadja]

More comments

I believe all level 3 forts should start with artillery. They don't have to be big and if a player wants to upgrade they can. You can also put understrength garrisons in all forts.

Impressments unrest. I don't have a problem with unrest when impressments, but only if they are sucessful. So far when I get the unrest the rioters only have destroyed mansion, capitols, or plantations. is there a destuction que on what gets broken first? The unrest cuts off production and income, I beleive this is enough with a very small chance of destroying the infrastructure. The unrest shows destruction of the infrastructer by not producing income. income that would have been garnered has used repair some of the stuff that was broke durring the riots. Even the ugly draft riots in NY they didn't burn down city hall and stopped income for 6 months.

these are all my comments so far, except I love this game and learning how to play it with in the rules of the GAME. I capitolized the game part because that it what it is. Sometimes when we lose we blame the game for not working like it should instead of may be we were the problem with bad choices. We sometimes we think we are napoleons when were really Santa Anna.

[ericbabe]

Do you mean 70% of their maximum strength or 70% of the strength at which they enter the game now?

[sadja]

of what they enter now

[Jaypea]

ORIGINAL: sadja


More comments

I believe all level 3 forts should start with artillery. They don't have to be big and if a player wants to upgrade they can. You can also put understrength garrisons in all forts.

Impressments unrest. I don't have a problem with unrest when impressments, but only if they are sucessful. So far when I get the unrest the rioters only have destroyed mansion, capitols, or plantations. is there a destuction que on what gets broken first? The unrest cuts off production and income, I beleive this is enough with a very small chance of destroying the infrastructure. The unrest shows destruction of the infrastructer by not producing income. income that would have been garnered has used repair some of the stuff that was broke durring the riots. Even the ugly draft riots in NY they didn't burn down city hall and stopped income for 6 months.

these are all my comments so far, except I love this game and learning how to play it with in the rules of the GAME. I capitolized the game part because that it what it is. Sometimes when we lose we blame the game for not working like it should instead of may be we were the problem with bad choices. We sometimes we think we are napoleons when were really Santa Anna.

I agree 100% with the above in bold! Great idea but maybe for level 2 & level 3 forts!

Jaypea

[spruce]

I just stopped playing this scenario as CSA around late 1863 and I can give following feedback =

set up = advanced buildings, +1 CSA power, first lt. difficulty. On this setting, prior to the patch, I won the game very easely. Now, the story is different.

overall impression = the Union kicked my butt - first I held them off, but from middle 1862 I was on the defense. And early 1863, the Union toppled me from my defenses in both Virginia and Tenessee. With the fact that Kentucky joined my cause, I must say the setup is pretty hard ! I played at +1 power for the CSA.

As CSA I was able to crank my replacements from camps up to 4500-5000 in 1862 - but a few months later this number had fell down to 3000 and 2500. That's a very low figure and I think it's related to the amount of cities I lost by then. But might also be related to the amount of pops I had used up trough musters and constriptions.

The Union troop numbers were pretty high imho, when the Union invaded Virginia early 1862 - they came with about 200.000-250.000 troops in total - that were 3 army containers. I leave this up to the Americans to decide.

The Union AI is pretty good - it played with me.

Very annoying is the absence of enough barracks in Richmond to build army containers. I must say I was never able to build any army container during the entire war. Later on it seems Jackson (not that big city) has already enough barracks to build corps containers from the start on. Why not Richmond, that's the capital !?!

Also very annoying is that no generals were killed ever - IIRC not one of my generals was killed ever. I don't recall of ever having killed an enemy general (do you get feedback on this ?) and I invested heavely in sharpshooters. But no Union generals killed.

Somthing that bothered me was that Grant was commanding one of the Union armies invading Virginia early 1862.

overall impression = very good. Keep up the good work.

[Gil R.]

Very annoying is the absence of enough barracks in Richmond to build army containers. I must say I was never able to build any army container during the entire war. Later on it seems Jackson (not that big city) has already enough barracks to build corps containers from the start on. Why not Richmond, that's the capital !?!

Also very annoying is that no generals were killed ever - IIRC not one of my generals was killed ever. I don't recall of ever having killed an enemy general (do you get feedback on this ?) and I invested heavely in sharpshooters. But no Union generals killed.

Regarding barracks, I added that second barracks to Jackson for this patch because I found it irksome and unfair that the CSA player couldn't put its western divisions into a single command, whereas the Union out west starts with army containers. I chose Jackson because it was far enough from the border that it wouldn't fall to the Union right away. What do others think about giving Richmond one or two more barracks?

As for generals, this is something we've been looking at since before releasing this beta patch. Eric has tweaked upwards the chances of generals dying, but perhaps not high enough. This is one of the things we wanted to solicit input on after people had been playing for a while, so I'm glad you brought this up. Would I be right to assume you were playing mostly quick combat? Because that's where we probably do need to increase the odds further.

[sadja]

I have killed a few gen on the union I sometimes move my gen(the really good ones before I do a charge attack) I lost Van dorn last night to a fire attack, I also lost 350 in that 1 attack.

[Alex Gilbert]

I think that even on regular general settings, there are enough generals that we can afford to lose a few more.  It hurts to lose the good ones, but overcoming and adapting to these problems is what makes the game interesting.  And I am almost always playing with Quick/Instant battles. 
 
 

[Gil R.]

That's what I thought -- it's in QC that they don't seem to be dying enough. Shouldn't be too hard to increase the odds, with 1-stars dying most often, 2-stars less often, and 3-stars rarely.