Testing of Patch 1.10.5

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: cesteman
How did this slip through the crack I wonder?

The beta testers aren't as vigorously active these days.

[Joram]

And the fact that it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't ...

[cesteman]

interesting Joram. Are you saying that sometimes the nation will doesn't change and sometimes it does? To answer Eric's reply I was hinting at why wasn't it caught during testing. I know there are a lot of things that go unchecked, but maybe in the future we should assign someone to check specific things, like as an example I was trying to recreate the disappearing city problem after both sides had taking a city. Just something to think about for future updates. Cheers!

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: cesteman

interesting Joram. Are you saying that sometimes the nation will doesn't change and sometimes it does? To answer Eric's reply I was hinting at why wasn't it caught during testing. I know there are a lot of things that go unchecked, but maybe in the future we should assign someone to check specific things, like as an example I was trying to recreate the disappearing city problem after both sides had taking a city. Just something to think about for future updates. Cheers!

Close, I'm saying sometimes the NW changes correctly and sometimes it doesn't and often it's actually backwards.

[Gil R.]

So any thoughts out there about the new Kentucky forts in the November scenarios, or the fact that Fort Monroe now starts off with the Department of Virginia inside, instead of just having the generic garrison unit there?

Any reactions to the way that "nesting" generals for Turn 1 works?

Now that people have had this patch for a while, are there thoughts on what's right/wrong with it, other than what's been posted so far?

[Houtje]

I'd say the patch is working fine, other than the NW-problem. The changes make for a smoother gameplay (esp. the two supply rules changes in HW). I have noticed, however, that the Union in the Coming Fury scenario is somewhat more aggressive than it should be. Their armies aren't that big yet, but as CSA I've had Lyon's Division lunging for Little Rock from July 1861 onward, even when they were constantly beaten by Price (and had only about 2000 men left). Similarly, the USA also tries to attack Memphis and Fort Henry way too early - with 30,000 against my 45,000. In the East they also attack, but there's always more of a parity in troop strength over there.

[wzh55]

Gil,
I have been playing the new version for a while now and have not seen what I would consider a bug (other than those already mentioned, and then I'm not sure of those, they are beyond my expertise sometimes). What I have noticed is that when playing as the Confederates, first sergeant level, advanced version of any scenario, is that it is all I can do is hang on. The difficulty level is much harder with all the tweaks, probably close to how it really was. Most of my brigades are at 1000 or less, and the only way to gain new brigades is through conscription until the governors are sick of it. Supply levels of everything except horses are bouncing near zero continuously. Even though this is probably as historically accurate as you can get it, my point is this: this difficultly level should be reflected higher up in the settings, say somewhere in the mid range as opposed to where it is now, near the lowest difficulty level (only 2-3 levels remain as easier). For those ones starting out on the game, I can see how it would be easy to get frustrated and quit. In my opinion, many games are so difficult to win against the AI that people tend to play them for awhile and then give up and go to another game. And then there is the other end of the spectrum, when the game is too easy and people quit after quickly "beating" the game. A good game has a wide range of difficulty settings, with other ways to tweak the game, making it harder or easier. This game has all that except the settings are geared to be hard nearer the bottom of the difficulty setting, and this seems to make it harder to find that sweet spot where the game is just right for you, not too hard where you get frustrated and quit, and not too easy where you would play maybe a game or two at the hardest level and find it child's play and quit.
But after all that said, when that is the only thing you can find wong with a game, that game has to be good. Thanks for letting me put my 2 cents worth in.

[Erik Rutins]

Bill,

You can always keep the difficulty the same, but try giving the CSA +1 Power to see if that makes it a bit more fun for you. I do agree though that the balance in the latest version feels pretty historical. Walking a mile in Jeff Davis' shoes is a very difficult walk indeed.

Regards,

- Erik

[Gil R.]

Erik,
You're right that one can give the CSA +1 power to solve the problem, but one shouldn't have to do that at one of the easier settings. At a default setting of +0 power and an easy level, the CSA player shouldn't feel too frazzled all the time.

Bill,
To what do you attribute this lack of manpower and resources? Is it there from the start, or is it due to the camps eating up population each April? As I've written above, one of the most important questions we need to settle is whether the population/depopulation that occurs in April is about right, and especially whether camps are consuming too much population. Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You're right that one can give the CSA +1 power to solve the problem, but one shouldn't have to do that at one of the easier settings. At a default setting of +0 power and an easy level, the CSA player shouldn't feel too frazzled all the time.

I'd have to disagree with you. The whole point of all these options is to tailor the game to each player. There's really no "one size fits all" as far as subjective/anecdotal reports on game difficulty. Sergeant/First Sergeant is meant to be the historical setting and historically it was tough for the south. You can balance this against other reports that the CSA has it too easy or that the North has it too tough on that same setting. My take is that on the default "historical" settings the balance is about right and players that don't want to deal with the other effects of the difficulty level can just adjust the power.

To what do you attribute this lack of manpower and resources? Is it there from the start, or is it due to the camps eating up population each April? As I've written above, one of the most important questions we need to settle is whether the population/depopulation that occurs in April is about right, and especially whether camps are consuming too much population. Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

I'm not sure why you're quite this concerned about the camps - after a bunch of reports in internal and public testing show that the CSA hordes are gone and balance seems about right... ? There are so many other factors involved in a given game that you'd pretty much have to look at a few save files to really determine where any particular strategy went wrong.

Regards,

- Erik

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You're right that one can give the CSA +1 power to solve the problem, but one shouldn't have to do that at one of the easier settings. At a default setting of +0 power and an easy level, the CSA player shouldn't feel too frazzled all the time.

I'd have to disagree with you. The whole point of all these options is to tailor the game to each player. There's really no "one size fits all" as far as subjective/anecdotal reports on game difficulty. Sergeant/First Sergeant is meant to be the historical setting and historically it was tough for the south. You can balance this against other reports that the CSA has it too easy or that the North has it too tough on that same setting. My take is that on the default "historical" settings the balance is about right and players that don't want to deal with the other effects of the difficulty level can just adjust the power.

Sure, I agree with all of that, up until the last sentence, since I think the jury is still out on that. Bill's an experienced player, so if he thinks that the changes have made this setting more difficult than it was intended to be, it's worth considering the issue. It's also worth soliciting opinions from others, which I meant to do in my previous post, but forgot.

Part of my thinking is that beginning players, especially those who aren't experienced at computer games, shouldn't have to mess with power settings when they first start up. Of course, that's just an opinion, but that's where I'm coming from on this.

To what do you attribute this lack of manpower and resources? Is it there from the start, or is it due to the camps eating up population each April? As I've written above, one of the most important questions we need to settle is whether the population/depopulation that occurs in April is about right, and especially whether camps are consuming too much population. Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

I'm not sure why you're quite this concerned about the camps - after a bunch of reports in internal and public testing show that the CSA hordes are gone and balance seems about right... ? There are so many other factors involved in a given game that you'd pretty much have to look at a few save files to really determine where any particular strategy went wrong.

One of the main reasons I thought we should have public beta-testing was to make sure that in eliminating the CSA hordes (which internal testing proved we had done) we hadn't overshot and made the CSA too weak. Bill's report suggests that this might indeed be an area for concern. I'm hoping that other players will chime in on whether the camps' depletion of population (and thus economic resources, assuming that one hasn't toggled off the link between population and production) is crippling the CSA, rather than simply weakening it.

[wzh55]

Gil,

The lack of manpower seems to be a direct result of the camps. Every April, camps which supply about 3500-5000 men at present take the entire allotment of population increase almost every April and most of the time there is a negative result (Population Increase = 10, Camps Take = 12 as an example). Around mid war, all money seems needed to refit brigades that are in desperate need, which leaves little money for new camps anyhow, let alone requests from governors for something extravagant such as a university, etc. The Union AI is hellbent on attack, attack, attack everywhere, it is VERY aggressive which leads to many battles fought and won by the Rebels during the first two years or so, and then the men run out, camps eat all population boost, so no conscription or impressment, and no recruitment through normal means. New artillery brigades are definitely out of the question. I do try to use the "power +" or "power -" tweaking and that helps some. You have definitely succeeded in "fixing" the CSA Horde issue. My original point still stands: the difficulty "meter" is skewed towards the difficult end. The difficulty level I am experiencing should be near the middle of the Difficulty Settings, not at the lower end of what most people would assume is the easy end of the range. Instead of 1st Sergarent, it shoul be rated as Captain or above. Hope I have made myself understood.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: wzh55
The lack of manpower seems to be a direct result of the camps. Every April, camps which supply about 3500-5000 men at present take the entire allotment of population increase almost every April and most of the time there is a negative result (Population Increase = 10, Camps Take = 12 as an example).

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

Around mid war, all money seems needed to refit brigades that are in desperate need, which leaves little money for new camps anyhow, let alone requests from governors for something extravagant such as a university, etc. The Union AI is hellbent on attack, attack, attack everywhere, it is VERY aggressive which leads to many battles fought and won by the Rebels during the first two years or so, and then the men run out, camps eat all population boost, so no conscription or impressment, and no recruitment through normal means. New artillery brigades are definitely out of the question. I do try to use the "power +" or "power -" tweaking and that helps some. You have definitely succeeded in "fixing" the CSA Horde issue. My original point still stands: the difficulty "meter" is skewed towards the difficult end. The difficulty level I am experiencing should be near the middle of the Difficulty Settings, not at the lower end of what most people would assume is the easy end of the range. Instead of 1st Sergarent, it shoul be rated as Captain or above. Hope I have made myself understood.

Thanks Bill, that's certainly clear enough for me.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Sure, I agree with all of that, up until the last sentence, since I think the jury is still out on that. Bill's an experienced player, so if he thinks that the changes have made this setting more difficult than it was intended to be, it's worth considering the issue. It's also worth soliciting opinions from others, which I meant to do in my previous post, but forgot.

Ok, I agree with that, I just wanted to be sure that you were considering all reports here since we've had a pretty broad range.

Part of my thinking is that beginning players, especially those who aren't experienced at computer games, shouldn't have to mess with power settings when they first start up. Of course, that's just an opinion, but that's where I'm coming from on this.

In principle, I agree, but an experience player should be able to use those to fine tune the settings to his own liking. Note that there are also several levels below "First Sergeant" - that's meant to be the "historical" level without giving the AI bonuses in its favor. One can always play at the "Tutorial" or "Corporal", etc. levels to get started. I agree that Bill's report needs to be taken into consideration, it's just that we've also seen reports where CSA Human players have won at this difficult level in this version so while challenging it's not at all insurmountable.

One of the main reasons I thought we should have public beta-testing was to make sure that in eliminating the CSA hordes (which internal testing proved we had done) we hadn't overshot and made the CSA too weak. Bill's report suggests that this might indeed be an area for concern. I'm hoping that other players will chime in on whether the camps' depletion of population (and thus economic resources, assuming that one hasn't toggled off the link between population and production) is crippling the CSA, rather than simply weakening it.[/b]

I'm totally in favor of gathering information, I was just concerned to make sure that you were keeping all reports in mind.

As far as the CSA being neutered by the update, I haven't shared that same concern - the CSA's advantages on the defensive and the fact that this same change also affects the Union has made it seem pretty even-handed to me. The CSA Hordes are gone, but it's still far from easy to actually conquer the South. I think things are about back to where they were before the inadvertent "horde" change which made the South almost invincible.

Regards,

- Erik

[wzh55]

Erik, Howdy!
To begin with: this game is outstanding!

Quoting you: "In principle, I agree, but an experience player should be able to use those to fine tune the settings to his own liking. Note that there are also several levels below "First Sergeant" - that's meant to be the "historical" level without giving the AI bonuses in its favor. One can always play at the "Tutorial" or "Corporal", etc. levels to get started. I agree that Bill's report needs to be taken into consideration, it's just that we've also seen reports where CSA Human players have won at this difficult level in this version so while challenging it's not at all insurmountable. " unquote.

I am not saying the game is unwinable at these settings and in this version as the CSA. I have won most of the battles to date (am now around mid 1862) and am enjoying the difficulty presented. Its just that once you get to this point in the games timeline, it is near impossible to take the war to the Union without commiting suicide. I do not see how Lee could have went to Pennsylvania and come back with any semblance of an army or any way of refitting the army if this is an accurate depiction of history (and I think it is close). At this point in the game, every southern region has no population available for recruiting, conscription, or impressment. The only regions that have population available are those with rebellious governors who are against conscription (Georgia as an example). All this is well and fine, very realistic, but as I have said, a beginer would find it difficult to get to a difficulty level at which he could enjoy continuing to play the game with some aspect of historical accuracy. The 1st Sergeant difficulty level should be easier and this difficulty should be reserved for a higher level to be chosen.

In my opinion, the aim of any historically accurate game is to find someway to change history given the same chances had by those involved before. With FoF, this is extremely difficult and there is the challenge, gentlemen.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

Why not make each camp consume 1 population? Still havent heard anyone say why its desirable for the population consumption to vary wildly from nothing up to 5 points per camp.

[Joram]

I don't think the CSA is too weak.  I've beaten the Union a couple times now as CSA in Southern Steel.  Using 1st Sergeant and all advanced options.  I've also lost a couple more than I've won but I expect that as it does take a little bit of luck to overcome the north's advantages.  This is also on IB only so it's even harder than using hexwar.
 
As far as the camps, I'm not sure about the order of it but here's the avg population used per camp is 1.25.  Obviously that means you will see more camps use 1 pop than 2 pops but you will also see some 0's and up to 4 pops per camp used (5 being about .1% chance so you'd likely not see it).
 
It does not seem unreasonable but it would be nice to know what is the chances of filling up lost population to see if a single camp would slowly deplete a city in the long run or not.

[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%

[cesteman]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Right now, each camp has five chances of depleting population -- perhaps lowering that to four chances might help with the issue you're reporting. If it's a population-related issue, that is.

Why not make each camp consume 1 population? Still havent heard anyone say why its desirable for the population consumption to vary wildly from nothing up to 5 points per camp.

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.

[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?