New Camp Rules?
New Camp Rules?
Due multiple camps in the same city produce multiple replacements?
The beta release txt says "• Reinforcement rate from camps is now 300+15*Men in Province."
If I compute this right, a city with 10 population and 1 camp would produce
300+ 15*10=450 replacements.
Would the same city with two camps produce 900 replacements? It shouldn't, but if it does and obvious exploit is to build all your camps in the most populace city and never use any men from there, of course you have a "10% chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn."
The beta release txt says "• Reinforcement rate from camps is now 300+15*Men in Province."
If I compute this right, a city with 10 population and 1 camp would produce
300+ 15*10=450 replacements.
Would the same city with two camps produce 900 replacements? It shouldn't, but if it does and obvious exploit is to build all your camps in the most populace city and never use any men from there, of course you have a "10% chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn."
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39325
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
RE: New Camp Rules?
Yes, you can build multiple camps in your most populous city - however that 10% chance is per camp. As you also noted, if you use any men from your most populous city for other purposes, this will reduce the total produced by each camp there. Also, if you lose that city, there goes your replacement system. If I recall correctly, previously, camps provided 500 replacements per camp, no matter where they were built, with no chance of manpower reduction.
With that said, I'd be fine with limiting them to one per city and we did discuss that during the development of the update, but it was decided to leave it as it is now.
With that said, I'd be fine with limiting them to one per city and we did discuss that during the development of the update, but it was decided to leave it as it is now.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
- christof139
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:43 am
RE: New Camp Rules?
Let the player decide if he/she wants to build mainly camps in their largest cities, because if they do that then they will be shorting themselves on the needed Arsenals, Tech. Centers, and resource buildings that they need to keep their troops in the field. The game Without supplies and resources the whole economy will be disrupted, and even with hordes of replacemtns going to the field armies, they will be unsupplied and ill equipped since the player that does build too many Camps will have neglected the porper arming and upgrading of his troops and they will be destroyed in battle because of being in such an ill equipped state. There does seem to be some decent balance concerning this in the game already.
Chris
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
RE: New Camp Rules?
i have 1 thing to add. Then i dont have to do it in my looooing post later. Since i was seeing the same as Mike. I started to build all my camps as US in Philly with 18 men. [:)]
With 18 men camps gave alot of reinforcement and could take some 1 men hits if they occured.
Any how back to the issue. I found Camps doesnt count toward supported buildings, I knew that, BUT they do count again max number of buildings in city, aka the 30 max. Not leaving that many able to be build in Philly. Further more since i maxed at 30 with camps, but the support was lower at 28 so i couldnt build a mansion becasue i had maxed buildings so the last 2 camps actually didnt produce any thing. knowing that now i can ofc build a mansion before i hit the max 30.
Maybe maxing a number of camps in cities is the way to go as u discussed. If so i'd say 2 or 3, but i dont see it as a big issue. Though i did in one game with captured CSA camps did hit 19k+ reinforcements per turn alrdy in 63. That was what i understand was tried to avoid rightfully IMO with those new rules.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
With 18 men camps gave alot of reinforcement and could take some 1 men hits if they occured.
Any how back to the issue. I found Camps doesnt count toward supported buildings, I knew that, BUT they do count again max number of buildings in city, aka the 30 max. Not leaving that many able to be build in Philly. Further more since i maxed at 30 with camps, but the support was lower at 28 so i couldnt build a mansion becasue i had maxed buildings so the last 2 camps actually didnt produce any thing. knowing that now i can ofc build a mansion before i hit the max 30.
Maybe maxing a number of camps in cities is the way to go as u discussed. If so i'd say 2 or 3, but i dont see it as a big issue. Though i did in one game with captured CSA camps did hit 19k+ reinforcements per turn alrdy in 63. That was what i understand was tried to avoid rightfully IMO with those new rules.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
RE: New Camp Rules?
I suggested that it double camps not produce double men because you will be using the same manpower twice. I'm fine leaving it the way it is, and up to the player. I will be building more camps in Philly though.[;)]
RE: New Camp Rules?
The 10% chance to reduce population is supposed to be a balance against building too many camps in your largest cities... if it isn't, we can always increase it to 20% [:)]
RE: New Camp Rules?
That's a good point, about camps maxing out a place like Philadelphia. I'd be in favor of having camps not count against the maximum number of buildings. Not sure about capping them, though.
Definitely, some tweaking to how camps work needs to be done, as the above posts demonstrate.
Definitely, some tweaking to how camps work needs to be done, as the above posts demonstrate.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
RE: New Camp Rules?
I'd support some tweeking. Philly being the example. Maybe the probabilty should even be higher than 20.
With 7 camps build in Philly max as of now, cuz of maxing of buildings u still only have
an over all 70% chance of losing a men. Doesnt play out like that in real math. U could lose between 0 and 7 according to luck, but for arguement lets say u lose 1 or 2. Thats within a normal mathematic given. Leaving u with 17 or 16. That sorta mean that the loss is negliant and not really a factor to be concerned about IMO. Considering the huge benefit. 300+15*18=570. Even with a few men lost its still larger than the pre patch camps.
How about the the percent is tied proportional into number of men in cities. So the percentage is low possibly the 10% in cities with few men. Having a city with 1 2 3 men and losing 1 or more is a bigger deal then. But in cities like Philly a camp's chance of reducing is propotional. So maybe 40 50% per camp. Or even higher.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
With 7 camps build in Philly max as of now, cuz of maxing of buildings u still only have
an over all 70% chance of losing a men. Doesnt play out like that in real math. U could lose between 0 and 7 according to luck, but for arguement lets say u lose 1 or 2. Thats within a normal mathematic given. Leaving u with 17 or 16. That sorta mean that the loss is negliant and not really a factor to be concerned about IMO. Considering the huge benefit. 300+15*18=570. Even with a few men lost its still larger than the pre patch camps.
How about the the percent is tied proportional into number of men in cities. So the percentage is low possibly the 10% in cities with few men. Having a city with 1 2 3 men and losing 1 or more is a bigger deal then. But in cities like Philly a camp's chance of reducing is propotional. So maybe 40 50% per camp. Or even higher.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
RE: New Camp Rules?
That sorta mean that the loss is negliant and not really a factor to be concerned about IMO. Considering the huge benefit. 300+15*18=570. Even with a few lost its still larger than the pre patch camps.
The other thing to consider is that you are not competing with pre-patch camps of 500, but post-patch camps of 300+15X.
A camp in a 4 population city which you build one infantry in (dropping population to 2) yields 330 reinforcements a turn.
A city with 12 population yields 480
Philly in double population rules 300+36*15=840
Camp placement matters!
RE: New Camp Rules?
another thing to consider is that in the "basic" system you get more replacements, while in the advanced settings there's a drive to build camps anyhow. Don't overpunish players that want to have a reasonable amount of replacements from camps ...
but agreed - balancing is necessary
but agreed - balancing is necessary
RE: New Camp Rules?
I'm not having a problem with the way camps are now working. I actually use Philly to help produce Inf Brigades since I can march the new brigade to a unit and then disband it causing the men to be disbursed to the other existing units. I just wish it was easier to disband and see your changes at the moment of disband. (In CoG I did this all the time.) I find myself wasting a turn or two of delaying a container's movement until I'm certain the new "replacement" brigade is in the right sub-container (having to shuffle units around within an army full of corps and divisions just so the right brigades get the replacements is a waste of time). It was a lot easier in CoG to direct the redistrubiton of manpower from one unit to another and I wish a similar systm was in place here... I'd skip using camps and just build replacment brigades... (though the 2 manpower loss in the city for each unit created does hurt but it's quicker and more directed than the camps.)
Dude
== Strength
A disbanded brigade will spread its men to all brigades in the same military group, both when voluntarily disbanded and when below minimum strength. Quality of units receiving strength is modified using the same formula given in the Technical Appendix for units receiving reinforcements from Camps. Artillery and Cavalry receive only 1/3 the regular number of strength factors.
Dude
“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant
RE: New Camp Rules?
ORIGINAL: spruce
Don't overpunish players that want to have a reasonable amount of replacements from camps ...
but agreed - balancing is necessary
My personal preference was getting camp enough to get 20k+ men per turn pre patch. Keeping alive, hmm actually make that maxing[:D], all my brigades. I didnt build a whole lot of new inf brigades. So im sorta argueing agaist my own personal preference. But i gathered that the dev team wanted too tweeked down the replacements. So im just trying to report what i see, and how it IMO plays in the current version. How to "beat" the system if u like.
All in all yes i agree it should be an option to do it. As u say its all about balance/costs of doing.
The dev team then has to make their decision based on what they are told and own opinions in the end.
kind regards,
Rasmus
RE: New Camp Rules?
Man, what sort of quality hits are you taking if you're getting 20000 replacement troops each turn? I think there's a perfect balance to be found, so that one isn't constantly making most of one's brigades greener and greener.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
RE: New Camp Rules?
ORIGINAL: Mike13z50
[The other thing to consider is that you are not competing with pre-patch camps of 500, but post-patch camps of 300+15X.
A camp in a 4 population city which you build one infantry in (dropping population to 2) yields 330 reinforcements a turn.
A city with 12 population yields 480
Philly in double population rules 300+36*15=840
Camp placement matters!
It certainly does. The way i see it. In order to optimize how it works as of now, which happens to be quirk of mine for better or worse.
I'd say if u gona build camps. Build them only in high Men resource cities. In order Philly, NY, St Louise and Cincinnati.
Dont build / conscript / muster any unit in those cities. Keeping the camps at peek production. There other cities in those states where u can produce units and all the other cities naturally.
Those 4 cities should hold the camps u need. St Louise has a lot of slots availble. Yes u will lose some men points in april, but as of currently with 1 men per 10 camps it doenst seem to have that big of an effect on the output of the camps.
Yes, u are right in the comparison optimize wise u should compare it to post patch camps.
The reason why i did compare it with pre patch camps was, if the intend as i understand it was, to cut down on replacements overall. U can as of now IMHO build camp having about same out put as pre patch if u do it the way i just descriped.
That said the costs are different now. Camps costs more and there are the loss of men resources. Slot wise its the same as before u just mass the camps instead of spreding them out.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
RE: New Camp Rules?
ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Man, what sort of quality hits are you taking if you're getting 20000 replacement troops each turn? I think there's a perfect balance to be found, so that one isn't constantly making most of one's brigades greener and greener.
That is certainly true. Figur in here i said pre patch. I had field armies designated to combat and hopefully destroy the enemy armies. I didnt use those for siege effords on purpose.
The losses was not that high from combat and attrition that the replecements really dilluted the quality more than what i got in gains from combat. I purposely got my logistic rating good+ division included in those armies to cut down on attrition losses. The quality keept rising. Problem was usually i ran out of enemies to fight [:D]. Note here of course many of start troops had low quality so initially they would even get upgraded by the replacements. Also no losses, no dillution, no matter how many replacements u get.
I had other armies designated for only sieging. In those i toke the large majority of my losses. Therefor the majority of the replacements went to those. Those sieges was deadly. It didnt matter much if they had a low quality around 2.5'ish was my experience. It meant i didnt have to build new units for those armies saving overall resources and they keept going in that battery bunny style, constandly being replenished. Sorry forgot the name at the moment.
I some times had to remove a single unit at low str to avoid it getting eliminated. I had a division designated following the army picking up those units. Bringing them back up to str and ready to go into to the siege army again.
As regards to post patch. The same is true, tho in a lesser extent in the few games i played so far. I wouldnt make a final verdict yet tho. Probleming being i didnt have to fight much because of the retreat dying enemy armies. So its sorta hard to know what the outcome would be on the long run.
That said i had my 2 main field combat armies end up with 90% of the units quality 4+ and some 5's and one 6, this bearing the relative few combats they fought.
A possible upgrade to this strategy is naturally to now, disband newly produced high quality units in the combat armies to keep up their quality, while keeping the camp replacements going to the siege armies.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
- christof139
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:43 am
RE: New Camp Rules?
Man, what sort of quality hits are you taking if you're getting 20000 replacement troops each turn? I think there's a perfect balance to be found, so that one isn't constantly making most of one's brigades greener and greener.
Yeah, poor me. When I disbanded new units and had a good amount of replacements coming in, my old Veteran Brigades not only got greener and greener but of course conseaquently yellower and yellower, that is they all started running away.
How to alleviate this very factual and historical event, well, it shouldn't be changed because that is what actually happened and continues to happen to this day. Therefore, I changed the name of a Corps or Division or Brigade to F-Troop, Yellow Legs, Yellow Butts, and etc. as they dropped in quality due to new troops coming in as replacements. This is a very good and historically accurate mechanism to have in this game.
I wouldn't mind seeing limiting the number of camps a player can build. Maybe maximums of 10-15 for the CSA and 20-30 for the USA. I've never had that numbr of Camps anyway.
Camps are good to sleep in too, as long as you finsd a nice and cozy nook or cranny where not anyone can find you. [;)]
Chris, Z-Troop [>:][>:][>:]
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
RE: New Camp Rules?
I wouldn't mind seeing limiting the number of camps a player can build. Maybe maximums of 10-15 for the CSA and 20-30 for the USA. I've never had that numbr of Camps anyway.
I'd always thought that replacements should be a constant resource drain of some kind, so that the stronger economy with the largest population can build and sustain the larger armies.
I think replacements provided as camps should have the same effect on population as building new units with the same number of troops. 1 man is one man, whether he goes to a fresh brigade or is placed in an existing one.
With that philosophy, I'd thought pre-patch camps were far overpowering, as with a relatively small early-game resource expenditure, you could get an incredible amount of 'free' troops (meaning no population or other resource is consumed).
Now they're 'free' 90% of the time.
Why are they 'free'?
"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"
- christof139
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:43 am
RE: New Camp Rules?
I'd always thought that replacements should be a constant resource drain of some kind, so that the stronger economy with the largest population can build and sustain the larger armies.
I think replacements provided as camps should have the same effect on population as building new units with the same number of troops. 1 man is one man, whether he goes to a fresh brigade or is placed in an existing one.
With that philosophy, I'd thought pre-patch camps were far overpowering, as with a relatively small early-game resource expenditure, you could get an incredible amount of 'free' troops (meaning no population or other resource is consumed).
Now they're 'free' 90% of the time.
Why are they 'free'?
Yeah, I think you're right. Replacement troops from camps should drain resources a bit. The game now has a chance for a camp to reduce the available population in a City. Problem is what does one city population blue-guy firgure represent in terms of actual people, and does the available city population reflect just people available from that one province or from several provinces??
The present game mechanism does allow a chamce for a city's available population to be reduced, but does the mechanism also allow a chance for resources of Guns, Money and Supplies to be reduced??
Overall, not a big problem to me personally, but you're right in actuality.
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
RE: New Camp Rules?
I think camps are too hard now ... in my current CSA game I'm up to 3300 replacements late 1862 and still that's below the default reinforcment 4000 setting for CSA in the standard game.
Either make camps cheaper again - or increase the amount of reinforced troops in the calculation.
constraint on camps is now gold - and the lost population in april is also pretty harsh - but acceptable.
Either make camps cheaper again - or increase the amount of reinforced troops in the calculation.
constraint on camps is now gold - and the lost population in april is also pretty harsh - but acceptable.