Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- He Went Thataway!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray >> RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- He Went Thataway! Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- He Went Thataway! - 10/31/2012 9:12:47 PM   
berto


Posts: 4857
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

After a hiatus, I have resumed my SVF playtest. Now at Late April 1862.

Repositioning Southern forces around Richmond for an attack, likely a siege, of Hunter's Command at Williamsburg VA.

I have lost track of McClellan and the AoP. Disappeared into the Fog of War.

Ominous Union activity in KY/TN, but Fog of War there too.

A possible bug. In the message box, and gazette, this:

quote:

Lee Takes Command

Major General Robert E. Lee has been relieved from his duties at the Richmond headquarters and may now take command of a Confederate Army.

But clearly Lee assumed command of the Army of Northern Virginia a few months ago.

Maybe that event should check its assumptions first?

_____________________________

Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT, http://pikt.org
Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

(in reply to Chliperic)
Post #: 211
SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- McClellan Back at Washi... - 10/31/2012 10:06:36 PM   
berto


Posts: 4857
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Early May 1862. Union AI, Confederate Human.

McClellan Back at Washington.

McClellan and the Army of the Potomac have found their way back to Washington DC. It's fairly impressive that the AI was able to do that, and has done the sensible thing.

The Union has amassed a great horde at Washington. Across the Potomac River, at Alexandria, Jackson is clearly outmatched. Lee will have to abandon his campaign against Hunter in the James Peninsula and move north post haste to reinforce Jackson in northern Virginia. Great battles are in store, doubtless.



In the center, battles are in prospect also.



Note the reference to our losing a battle in the South West. That would be Fremont, with ~15,000 men, attacking a mere 500 Southern garrison at Tucson. It seems odd that the Union AI would devote that great a force to such a distant sideshow. You might want to investigate.

We are approaching parity with the Union in NM. We remain (hopelessly?) behind in VPs, though. Lastly, we are about even in combat losses. Over the long run, that's not good.

Union Morale 132, VPs 1466, Combat Losses 24869

Confederate Morale 124, VPs 1310, Combat Losses 28082

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.


< Message edited by berto -- 10/31/2012 10:07:30 PM >


_____________________________

Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT, http://pikt.org
Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

(in reply to berto)
Post #: 212
RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- McClellan Back at W... - 10/31/2012 11:18:39 PM   
Chliperic


Posts: 958
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
The next version should deliver an improved AI, from what I'm testing in FY right now.

Tucson? Indeed something has to be fixed here. Next version.

All things considered, Union AI has captured Richmond, then after losing it, saved most of the Army of the Potomac, by an amphibious retreat and is concentrating again at Washington. Apart better naval commitment, it's indeed an rather impressive action. I wasn't expecting that much when I wrote the events.

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 10/31/2012 11:21:39 PM >


_____________________________

Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

http://moddercorner.com/

(in reply to berto)
Post #: 213
RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- He Went Thataway! - 10/31/2012 11:38:06 PM   
Chliperic


Posts: 958
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
Lee: The current offcial events are poor. But I've not yet determined what I will write to replace them.

First Lee made a suspicious start in WV on Autum 1861, before being called as Davis adviser and inspection of coastal defenses. That has to be simulated, but giving Lee freedom of movement with his 3 stars and high values will result in his immediate commitment to the command of the CSA main force... There are several solutions to this: very low seniority at start with one or two stars rank could be one, even if it has drawbacks.

Secondly, the nomination of Lee in 1862 was precipitated by Johnston's wound. Here too something must be defined to avoid the no brainer " I commit Lee as soon as possible as the commander of the Army".

But I'm thinking about

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 10/31/2012 11:39:14 PM >


_____________________________

Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

http://moddercorner.com/

(in reply to berto)
Post #: 214
RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Is Halleck Walking ... - 11/1/2012 10:06:29 PM   
berto


Posts: 4857
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Late May 1862. Union AI, Confederate Human.

Is Halleck Walking Into a Trap?

Movement in the central theater. Halleck is venturing forth with a middling sized force. Is he walking into a trap?



To the east, I am shifting forces to north Virginia in anticipation of the Union AoP onslaught. Also sending out cavalry scouts towards the Shenandoah Valley, as I am in the dark about Union dispositions there.

Out west, Price has successfully fended off an attack by Sigel in yet another Battle of Fayetteville.

Union Morale 133, VPs 1462, Combat Losses 26224

Confederate Morale 125, VPs 1357, Combat Losses 28912

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

_____________________________

Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT, http://pikt.org
Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

(in reply to berto)
Post #: 215
SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Reflections - 11/2/2012 8:25:02 PM   
berto


Posts: 4857
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

Now at Early June 1862.

No screenshots or saves, but some reflections:

  • Still no coastal ops. At all.
  • No Union offensive naval action. Whether at sea, or on the rivers. At all. This despite the Union Navy having the overwhelming advantage.
  • The Union seems to have retreated in the center. Little or no aggressiveness.
  • In contrast, the Union AI seems to be devoting too much resources to the West. Lots of action out there, compared to almost none in the center. And compared to the Real War.
  • Hunter's Command, Pwr 701, sits tight in Williamsburg VA, since early 1862. A Union garrison, ~140 Pwr, occupies Ft Monroe VA. Between them, McGruder, 60 Pwr, awaits nervously at James City VA. Or maybe not so nervousely. Why doesn't the Union assault, or at least besiege, McGruder? The Union AI should find James City easy pickings. But here again, no action at all.
  • Other than that, the eastern theater in general is active, entertaining, and plausible. The west is entertaining, too, if maybe too active. It's "just" the center, the coasts, and the riverine and sea inactivity that disappoint.

    Not to be harsh. I am truly enjoying my test game. If not quite passing the Turing Test, the Union AI is passing the Turing Quiz.

    But clearly there's still lots of work to do. (Maybe someday I'll be up to speed on AI programming, able to assist. If you agree, of course.)

    I still plan on taking this as far into 1862 as I can before Sunday, when you have announced the next SVF release. We can assess then if I should start over -- again! -- or continue with my present game.

    < Message edited by berto -- 11/2/2012 11:36:49 PM >


    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
  • Post #: 216
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Reflections - 11/2/2012 9:10:54 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    More reflections:

    Not to re-open old debates ... um, yes I will.

    It seems to me that the Southern commanders are, in general (pun intended), over-rated. Especially in the east, an abundance of Southern commanders with decent to very good stats.

    McClellan is rated 2-1-1, IIRC. I hate McClellan as much as the next guy, but I think that is -- especially compared to the generous Southern ratings -- too low. I would rate him at least a 2-2-2, possibly even a 2-2-3.

    McClellan fought decently at Williamsburg, winning the battle against J. Johnston (rated 4-0-5). Yes, McClellan was a wimp during the Peninsula Campaign. But he put up a stiff fight against Johnston (again) at Seven Pines, and especially against Lee throughout the Seven Days. Yes, a strategic defeat, but McClellan inflicted significantly more casualties on Lee (4:3).

    McClellan a mere 2-1-1? Hmm. There is this counterevidence:

    quote:

    Asked then who was the ablest Federal general he had opposed throughout the war, Robert E. Lee replied without hesitation "McClellan, by all odds."

    Was Lee trying to explain away his relatively poor showing against McClellan, particularly at Malvern Hill? And the near-defeat at Antietam? (Yes, McClellan enjoyed 2:1 odds and should have destroyed Lee, especially on the lost-opportunity hypothetical second day.) Post-war "spin"?

    I don't question McClellan's poor strategic rating. Just his offensive/defensive stats. Also the relatively high stats of the (eastern) Southern commanders in general.

    Anyway, I wonder if some re-balancing might be in order.

    And how to get the best Union generals out west sooner into the fight?

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 217
    SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- localization bug - 11/2/2012 10:03:31 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    In SVF 2.0 beta 20121019, another localization bug.

    Early June 1862, in the message box:

    quote:

    5/6. strUnitSpawned
    6/6. strUnitSpawned


    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 218
    SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- The Waiting Game - 11/2/2012 10:40:26 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Late June 1862. Union AI, Confederate Human.

    The Waiting Game.

    The situation in the east. Lee, and a posse of very capable lieutenant commanders, should have more than enough force to fend off the eastern Union armies.

    At Williamsburg, Hunter continues to sit out the war. Does Hunter have 0-0-0 stats?

    (At Prince George VA, I seem unable to recapture those lost Columbiads.)



    In the center, this screenshot exemplifies my frustration. Since the beginning of the war, there have been no aggressive moves by the Union, at least none that resulted in significant battle. General somnolence.



    Last turn, I observed a sizebable Union fleet, under Farragut's command, in the Gulf blockade box. The Union has a powerful navy, but to what purpose?

    Union Morale 134, VPs 1554, Combat Losses 26274

    Confederate Morale 125, VPs 1452, Combat Losses 29162

    Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

    [All constructive criticism, I hope.]

    < Message edited by berto -- 11/2/2012 10:43:56 PM >


    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 219
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Reflections - 11/2/2012 11:15:54 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    I'm beginning to wonder about game balance. Is this all a bit too easy?

    In the east, it's almost as if the South had not temporarily lost its capital for several months last winter. The turnabout in fortunes has been remarkable.

    In the center, in the Real War, A.S. Johnston rightfully felt woefully short of forces. Yet here he seems to face no serious challenge.

    Along the coasts, out to sea -- nada, zip. No challenge there either.

    I have no reason to suppose I'm an especially gifted player.

    Again: A good, fun, plausible game, but only to the east and the far west.

    Maybe downgrade some of those Eastern Theater Confederate commanders? Other adjustments?

    If I am destined to restart again upon release of this Sunday's promised update, I wonder if my time now would be better spent preparing my own test suites and fiddling around with the AI. (With an eye toward the impending URR.) In other words, suspend this current playtest.

    Thoughts?

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 220
    SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Hooker Departs Williams... - 11/3/2012 2:08:22 AM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Early July 1862. Union AI, Confederate Human.

    Hooker Departs Williamsburg.

    At Williamsburg, Hunter was given the sack (for inactivity?), and command passed to the hard-fighting, hard-drinking Joe Hooker. Hooker's Command marched to Mathews VA, crossed the Chesapeake Bay, then travelled by train around the Bay to Anne Arundel MD (Annapolis). Again, a pretty impressive Union AI maneuver. But back to square one.

    The threat of Union advance up the James Peninsula is no more. This frees up Longstreet to join his brethren in the defense of northern Virginia. We should have ample force to rebel the Yankee invaders. Bring 'em on!



    Signs of life in the center, but just barely. See how weak Halleck's Army (so-called) of the Tennesse is. To the northeast, Buell's Army (so-called) of the Cumberland is even weaker. We have little to fear in the center, it seems.



    Note how we've overtaken the Union in NM. Closing the gap in VPs, too. Struggle for a Victorious Future?

    Union Morale 122, VPs 1600, Combat Losses 26274

    Confederate Morale 124, VPs 1500, Combat Losses 29162

    Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.


    < Message edited by berto -- 11/3/2012 4:58:45 AM >


    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 221
    SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/3/2012 4:16:16 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Late July 1862. Union AI, Confederate Human.

    Coastal Ops!

    In a long-awaited, if not quite surprising development (I expected it, just didn't know where), a Union army under W. "Baldy" Smith's command has landed on the South Carolina coast, just outside of Charleston!



    And, at ~50,000 men, a sizeable force it is too!



    Coastal ops at long last. As a game player (if not as Jefferson Davis), I am positively giddy with excitement!

    Okay, this has just gotten real interesting. That settles it. I will continue this current playtest. Hopefully Sunday's promised SVF update will be compatible with my current game. I really would like to take this game into 1863 and beyond, and not have to start over yet again. (Groan!)

    Alas, we're not quite there yet. The Union continues to display timidity in KY/TN. Understrength there? Poor leadership? Probably both.

    But 3 out of 5 (so far; further surprises may be in prospect) -- enjoyable East, Far West, and now also the Coast -- not bad, not bad.

    Union Morale 118, VPs 1586, Combat Losses 27159

    Confederate Morale 123, VPs 1543, Combat Losses 30212

    Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

    < Message edited by berto -- 11/3/2012 4:17:06 PM >


    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 222
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/3/2012 4:25:59 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    An observation about W. Smith's invasion fleet: transports only, no warships, AFAIK.

    In game terms, it is quite unlikely that a Southern war fleet would intercept by chance any Union invasion fleet. But in terms of plausibility, it was quite unlikely in Real Life that the Union would send forth a 50,000-man invasion force unprotected like that. No?

    So, your judgment call whether to tweak this, whether or not to add at least a token combat naval escort to accompany the transports. Just a suggestion.

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 223
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- localization bug - 11/3/2012 4:31:02 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    In SVF 2.0 beta 20121019, another localization bug.

    Late July 1862, in the message box:

    quote:

    6/6. evt_nam_CSA_HoodB


    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 224
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Reflections - 11/3/2012 4:52:40 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    So now, in Late July 1862, we get J.B. Hood. I look at his stats, and I see: 5-6-3!

    I checked McClellan's stats. Indeed, they are 2-1-1.

    I understand full well the controversies here, also that you have probably implemented the Leadership Ratings Mod (is that its formal name?) with little if any review.

    But this is quite wrong, IMO.

    Stack up Hood's against McClellan's exploits as an independent force commander, and arguably McClellan is better. But that much worse than Hood? No way!

    Even if, as I suspect, Hood's ratings decline from year to year (but why would that be so? does the mod presuppose his debilitating, later war induries, and how they may have affected his mind?) -- it's quite hard to believe that Hood was the better commander than McClellan. Aggressive, yes, hence a higher strategic rating is justified. (Although McClellan did show initiative in devising the Peninsula Campaign. And he moved fast against Lee before Antietam.) But the offensive-defensive stats? No way! Other than his all-consuming aggressiveness, how did Hood display superior battlefield generalship at Atlanta (etc.), or at any of the engagements in the Franklin Campaign?

    Not to pick on just these two. I suspect, but don't know for a fact, that similarly pro-Southern commander rating tilts prevail across the lineup.

    Methinks that maybe Southern fanbois created the Leadership Ratings Mod.

    Unless this was spun this way in order to achieve play balance and better the South's chances. But if the South is now too strong, this is surely one area where you might want to make some adjustments (i.e., lower Southern ratings across the field).

    < Message edited by berto -- 11/3/2012 5:58:14 PM >


    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 225
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Reflections - 11/3/2012 7:24:21 PM   
    Chliperic


    Posts: 958
    Joined: 3/21/2010
    Status: offline
    Hood was outstanding at divisional level. SVF 2.0 varies his stats at upper levels to maintain uncertainty when he's promoted, but chances are rather large to egt a lame 3 star Generals Hood.

    Nxt SVF 2.0 version is postponed for a few weeks, time needed to test it myself. SVf 2.0 current version being deprecated, I've removed it from open beta.

    _____________________________

    Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
    Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

    http://moddercorner.com/

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 226
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Reflections - 11/3/2012 7:48:09 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    What does that suggest about my current playtest? Continue? Or abandon?

    Even if not open for a while, I will continue to test in closed beta, no?

    [BTW, if it's not clear by now: I am a grognard, a grumbler. When it comes to a simulation's plausibility -- perhaps the thing I value most in a war game -- I am one tough customer. Take my comments with a grain of salt. Or a shakerful. ]

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to Chliperic)
    Post #: 227
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/3/2012 10:19:40 PM   
    Chliperic


    Posts: 958
    Joined: 3/21/2010
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto


    An observation about W. Smith's invasion fleet: transports only, no warships, AFAIK.

    In game terms, it is quite unlikely that a Southern war fleet would intercept by chance any Union invasion fleet. But in terms of plausibility, it was quite unlikely in Real Life that the Union would send forth a 50,000-man invasion force unprotected like that. No?

    So, your judgment call whether to tweak this, whether or not to add at least a token combat naval escort to accompany the transports. Just a suggestion.



    That's why the recent AGEOD games have this line added in the settings:

    aiCMN_NavComboTransports = 0 // if 1, most of the naval units are also transports ships, so skip the split combat fleet / transport fleet that the code will do otherwise (default is 0, naval units are not'combo')

    For AJE , it's one, for AACW 1.17 it's 0.

    In short, the AI is cheating in AJE on this one, as much I understand this. This cheat is a good trade off.

    There are with each version many unnoticed changes in the "official" AI. Most are fully undocumented. It takes time to track them and adapt. 3 years have been needed to get the AI on the Eastern theater, certainly 3 months will be necessary to obtain a confortable dispattch of Union forces in Kentucky and I can just hope I will not need 3 years to reach a decent level for naval AI operations. It could be five years. I'm patient. That's why the next SVF 2.0 version will wait.

    _____________________________

    Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
    Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

    http://moddercorner.com/

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 228
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/3/2012 10:20:30 PM   
    Chliperic


    Posts: 958
    Joined: 3/21/2010
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Chliperic


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto


    An observation about W. Smith's invasion fleet: transports only, no warships, AFAIK.

    In game terms, it is quite unlikely that a Southern war fleet would intercept by chance any Union invasion fleet. But in terms of plausibility, it was quite unlikely in Real Life that the Union would send forth a 50,000-man invasion force unprotected like that. No?

    So, your judgment call whether to tweak this, whether or not to add at least a token combat naval escort to accompany the transports. Just a suggestion.



    That's why the recent AGEOD games have this line added in the settings:

    aiCMN_NavComboTransports = 0 // if 1, most of the naval units are also transports ships, so skip the split combat fleet / transport fleet that the code will do otherwise (default is 0, naval units are not'combo')

    For AJE , it's one, for AACW 1.17 it's 0.

    In short, the AI is cheating in AJE on this one, as much I understand this. This cheat is a good trade off.

    There are with each version many unnoticed changes in the "official" AI. Most are fully undocumented. It takes time to track them and adapt. 3 years have been needed to get the AI on the Eastern theater, certainly 3 months will be necessary to obtain a confortable dispattch of Union forces in Kentucky and I can just hope I will not need 3 years to reach a decent level for naval AI operations. It could be five years. I'm patient. That's why the next SVF 2.0 version will wait. Perfection isn't coming with the first draw.



    _____________________________

    Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
    Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

    http://moddercorner.com/

    (in reply to Chliperic)
    Post #: 229
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/3/2012 10:40:18 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Chliperic

    There are with each version many unnoticed changes in the "official" AI. Most are fully undocumented. It takes time to track them and adapt. 3 years have been needed to get the AI on the Eastern theater, certainly 3 months will be necessary to obtain a confortable dispattch of Union forces in Kentucky and I can just hope I will not need 3 years to reach a decent level for naval AI operations. It could be five years.

    As we've seen, it takes months and years, because the playtests are so slow. A pity we have to -- every playtest! -- "waste" time on the same old same old early war turns.

    quote:

    I'm patient.

    So am I.

    quote:

    That's why the next SVF 2.0 version will wait.

    When I got back into this, I estimated it would take years of hard work to Do It Right. But it's not "work" when it's a hobby, a labor of love.

    No rush.

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to Chliperic)
    Post #: 230
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/4/2012 12:16:01 AM   
    BigDuke66


    Posts: 1591
    Joined: 2/1/2001
    From: Terra
    Status: offline
    What about the state for PBEM games, are events finished to the end of the war?
    I rather would like to see that done first with AI polishing later.

    _____________________________

    JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

    "Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 231
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/4/2012 4:13:03 AM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    When I got back into this, I estimated it would take years of hard work to Do It Right.

    Not implying just AACW here. I'm referring to SVF, FY, URR, and whatever else develops.

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 232
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/4/2012 10:59:14 PM   
    Chliperic


    Posts: 958
    Joined: 3/21/2010
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

    What about the state for PBEM games, are events finished to the end of the war?
    I rather would like to see that done first with AI polishing later.



    That's unfortunatley my philosophy about computer games: AI matters. Even with a 2 factions game like AACW, having an AI able to play a coherent game is mandatory. When you're trying to bring such AI, you 're forced to think about the main questions for PBEM; ie balance, gamey tactics, weight of events on the gameplay, Victory conditions, etc. It may seem strange, but i'm convinced the best way to regulate these points in a computer wargame is to work with AI in mind. A boardgame hasn't AI, but rules are simpler, turns are fewer, and so it's easier to address these features by playtest. In AGE games, like in many wargames, things are too much complex and games too much long to complete to allow real playtesting between players, excepted if you're willing to wait a few years before release. When the AI is able to put a creditable game, you may then have a loosy but real blueprint of a PBEM game. That's why to a few exception, only computer wargames with decent AI are generally good for PBEM.

    But I promise to hurry the work on SVF 2.0 :-)

    _____________________________

    Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
    Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

    http://moddercorner.com/

    (in reply to BigDuke66)
    Post #: 233
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/8/2012 11:00:35 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    Coastal Ops!

    In a long-awaited, if not quite surprising development (I expected it, just didn't know where), a Union army under W. "Baldy" Smith's command has landed on the South Carolina coast, just outside of Charleston!

    ...

    And, at ~50,000 men, a sizeable force it is too!


    This has been bothering me. In the larger scheme of things, and at that time of the war (mid 1862), 50,000 seems too much, way out of proportion. And especially how shorted Union forces in the KY/TN theater seem to be. Just another thought.

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 234
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/9/2012 7:59:43 AM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    Coastal Ops!

    In a long-awaited, if not quite surprising development (I expected it, just didn't know where), a Union army under W. "Baldy" Smith's command has landed on the South Carolina coast, just outside of Charleston!

    ...

    And, at ~50,000 men, a sizeable force it is too!


    This has been bothering me. In the larger scheme of things, and at that time of the war (mid 1862), 50,000 seems too much, way out of proportion. And especially how shorted Union forces in the KY/TN theater seem to be. Just another thought.

    At http://www.civilwararchive.com/CORPS/10thcorp.htm it says:

    quote:

    10th Corps

    James Island; Pocotaligo; Morris Island; Fort Wagner; Olustee; Walthall Junction; Chester Station; Proctor's Creek; Drewry's Bluff; Cold Harbor; Bermuda Hundred; Ware Bottom Church; Petersburg; Strawberry Plains; Deep Bottom; Chaffin's Farm; New Market Road; Darbytown Road; Charles City Road; Fair Oaks (1864); Fort Fisher; Sugar Loaf Battery; Fort Anderson; Wilmington.

    Organized under General Orders No. 123, September 3, 1S62, which designated the forces in the Department of the South as the Tenth Army Corps, and assigned Major-General O. M. Mitchel to its command. These troops were stationed principally at Hilton Head, S.C., and Beaufort, S.C., the order including also the troops at Fort Pulaski, Ga., Key West, Fla., Fernandina, Fla., and St. Augustine, Fla.; in all, 14,602, present and absent, with 10,190 <fx_85>present for duty. There were 14 regiments of infantry, 1 of engineers, a battalion of cavalry, and the usual compliment of light batteries.

    General Mitchel died, October 30, 1862, and was succeeded by General J. M. Brannan. In January, 1863, General David Hunter relieved Brannan, and assumed command of the department; Hunter was relieved on June 3, 1863, and General Quincy A. Gillmore was assigned to the command of the corps. The total, present for duty, in June, 1863, was 16,329, including artillery and cavalry. The troops at Hilton Head were commanded by General Alfred H. Terry; those on Folly Island, by General Israel Vogdes; those at Beaufort, by General Rufus Saxton; at Seabrook Island, by General T. J. Stevenson; at St. Helena Island, by Colonel H. R. Guss.

    These forces were all under General Gillmore, and participated in the various operations about Charleston Harbor in the summer of 1863, the principal event being the bloody assault on Fort Wagner, July 18, 1863. This assault was made by a column of three brigades,--Strong's, Putnam's, and Stevenson's, the whole under command of General Truman H. Seymour. General Strong's brigade led the assault, with the 54th Massachusetts (Colored) at the head of his column. The attack was a failure, resulting in a loss of 246 killed, 880 wounded, and 389 missing; total, 1,515. The most of the missing were killed or wounded, but few of them ever returning. To this loss should be added 339 casualties, which occurred in an attack on Fort Wagner, July 11th, a week before, an attempt made by three regiments only. Two of the three brigade commanders, General Strong and Colonel Putnam, were killed in the assault of the 18th, Putnam falling after he had effected an entrance into the fort. Stevenson's Brigade was held mainly in reserve.

    In February, 1864, Seymour's Division, of about 7,000 men, sailed for Florida, where it was engaged on the 20th in the battle of Olustee, a defeat in which some of the regiments suffered terribly. In April, 1864, the Tenth Corps was ordered to Virginia, where it was placed in General Butler's Army of the James, which was composed of the Tenth and Eighteenth Corps. The Tenth assembled at Yorktown, Va., where it was organized into the three divisions of Terry, Turner, and Ames, numbering, as present for duty, 16,812 infantry, and 1,114 artillerymen, with 46 guns.

    The Army of the James landed at Bermuda Hundred, May 6, 1864, and a month of active service and hard fighting immediately commenced, the Tenth Corps losing in its operations around Drewry's Bluff, 374 killed, 2,475 wounded, and 807 missing; total, 3,656. Butler's operations resulting in nothing but failures, General Grant ordered the greater part of his forces to the support of the Army of the Potomac. Accordingly, on the 29th of May, General W. F. Smith, commanding the Eighteenth Corps, took the First (Brooks') and Second (Martin-dale's) Divisions of his own corps, and the Second (Devens') and Third (Ames') Divisions of the Tenth Corps, and proceeded to Cold Harbor, where these divisions cooperated with the Army of the Potomac in the terrible fighting which commenced immediately upon their arrival. While at Cold Harbor, these two divisions of the Tenth Corps were known as part of the Eighteenth Corps, forming the Third Division, under command of General Devens. Upon the close of the fighting at Cold Harbor, the two divisions returned by water transports to Bermuda Hundred, but consolidated as the Second Division, Tenth A. C.

    On the 14th of August, the Tenth Corps, under command of General David B. Birney, crossed the James and became engaged with the enemy at Deep Bottom, General Terry's division taking a prominent part in this action. The casualties in the corps were: 213 killed, 1,154 wounded, 311 missing; total, 1,678. On September 29th, Birney crossed again with his corps, and fought at Chaffin's Farm, his command consisting of Terry's and Ames' divisions, together with a brigade of colored troops, under General William Birney. Loss: 74 killed, 587 wounded, 302 missing; total, 963. In the unsuccessful attack on Fort Gilmer, and at New Market Heights, these colored troops displayed great gallantry. General David B. Birney died at Philadelphia, October 18, 1864, and was succeeded by General Terry, who was in command of the corps during the fighting on the Darbytown Road, and at the battle of Fair Oaks, October 27, 1864.

    On December 3, 1864, the corps was discontinued, and its regiments were assigned to the newly formed Twenty-fourth Corps, which was composed of the white troops from the Tenth and Eighteenth Corps. But immediately after this transfer, Ames' Division, together with Abbott's Brigade of this new corps, were detached and ordered on the Fort Fisher expedition. After the brilliant capture of Fort Fisher by these troops, they remained in North Carolina, and, in March, 1865, the Tenth Corps was revived. As reorganized, it consisted of Birge's (1st) Division, composed of three brigades taken from Grover's Division of the Nineteenth Corps, then stationed at Savannah; of Ames' (2nd) Division, composed of the troops which fought at Fort Fisher; of Paine's (3d) Division, colored troops; and of Abbott's Separate Brigade, numbering in all 12,099 men. General Terry, who was in command at the victory of Fort Fisher, was placed at the head of the corps. But the war was then near its close, and in August, 1865, the organization was discontinued.

    See also http://www.civilwararchive.com/CORPS/18thcorp.htm, where it is says

    quote:

    18th Corps

    Kinston; Whitehall; Goldsboro; Siege Of Washington (N.C.); Siege Of Suffolk; Quaker Bridge; Gum Swamp; Bachelor's Creek; Winton; Port Walthall; Arrow-Field Church; Drewry's Bluff; Bermuda Hundred; Cold Harbor; Assault On Petersburg, June 15th; Mine Explosion; Petersburg Trenches; Chaffin's Farm; Fair Oaks (1864); Fall Of Richmond.

    On December 24, 1862, the President ordered that the troops in the Department of North Carolina should be organized into a corps and designated as the Eighteenth. These troops were stationed at Newbern, Plymouth, Beaufort, and vicinity. They included Peck's Division, formerly of the Fourth (Peninsular) Corps; also, some regiments which had fought under Burnside at Roanoke Island and New Berne. There were, also, twelve regiments of nine-months men--six of them from Massachusetts, and six from Pennsylvania--whose terms of enlistment expired in the summer of 1863. Some of these nine-months regiments had fought creditably at Kinston, Whitehall, and Goldsboro, in December, 1862, the same month in which the corps was organized.

    In February, 1863, the roster showed five divisions, commanded respectively by Generals Palmer, Naglee, Ferry, Wessells, and Prince, with General J. G. Foster in command of the corps. Ferry's and Naglee's Divisions--containing sixteen regiments--were detached in February, 1863, and ordered to Charleston Harbor, where they were attached to the Tenth Corps, becoming subsequently a part of that organization. In June, 1863, the twelve regiments which had been enrolled for nine months only took their departure, their term of service having expired. In place of these losses the troops of the Seventh Corps were transferred, that organization having been discontinued August 1, 1863. With the Seventh Corps came a valuable accession of veteran material in Getty's Division, formerly of the Ninth Corps. This division had been left in South-eastern Virginia when the Ninth Corps went to the West, and had been engaged, in the spring of 1863, in the defense of Suffolk against Longstreet's besieging Army.

    After the withdrawal of the enemy from the vicinity of Suffolk, there were no operations of consequence during the year 1863 in the Department of North Carolina, and the corps was left in quiet possession of the territory. There were, however, occasional reconnaissance's into the enemy's country, and some skirmishing at the outposts.

    In April, 1864, the corps was concentrated at Yorktown, preparatory to the spring campaign of the Army of the James. That army was commanded by General Butler, and was composed of the Tenth and Eighteenth Corps. The Eighteenth, as organized for this campaign, contained 15,972 officers and men present for duty, including the artillery, which carried 36 guns. It was commanded by William F. Smith, a Sixth Corps general, who had fought under McClellan, and who, later on, had achieved distinction through his successful plan of the battles of Chattanooga. The corps contained three divisions, commanded by Generals Brooks, Weitzel and Hinks, the division of the latter being composed of colored troops. Butler's Army landed at Bermuda Hundred May 6, 1864,--the same day that Grant was fighting in the Wilderness,--and a series of bloody battles immediately followed, the principal one occurring May 16th, at Drewry's Bluff. The campaign was a short one, resulting in defeat, and Butler withdrew to his original position on the James River, the corps losing in these operations 213 killed, 1,224 wounded and 742 missing; total, 2,179. General Grant then ordered the Eighteenth Corps to reinforce the Army of the Potomac, and on May 27th it moved by transports down the James and up the York River to White House Landing, from whence it marched to Cold Harbor. Hinks' Division was left behind, and in its place, two divisions of the Tenth Corps, under General Devens, temporarily attached to the Eighteenth as a third division, moved with General Smith's command, the three divisions being commanded at Cold Harbor by Generals Brooks, Martindale and Devens. In that battle the Eighteenth Corps made a gallant attack on the enemy's entrenchment's; but, like the various other corps engaged, it was obliged to abandon the assault with heavy loss, its casualties at Cold Harbor amounted to 448 killed, 2,365 wounded, and 206 missing; total, 3,019.

    On June 12th, General Smith's command withdrew from Cold Harbor, and, re-embarking, sailed for Bermuda Hundred, arriving there on the 14th. On the following day the Eighteenth Corps advanced to Petersburg and assaulted the works that evening, Hinks' Colored Division gaining a partial success and capturing several pieces of artillery. This was the first time in the war in which colored troops, to the extent of a brigade, were engaged in battle.

    After the failure of the assaults on Petersburg the Eighteenth Corps went into position in the trenches, and participated in the siege. It held the extreme right of the line, at which point the contending armies were nearest each other. The proximity of the enemy's pickets and the incessant firing occasioned large losses, daily, in killed and wounded.

    On August 26th it was relieved by the Tenth Corps, and ordered within the defenses of Bermuda Hundred. In the latter part of September it was ordered to the north bank of the James, where, on the 29th, the First Division (Stannard's) participated in the brilliant and successful assault on Fort Harrison, at Chaffin's Farm. At this time, General Stannard commanded the First Division, General Brooks having resigned in July; General Paine had succeeded Hinks in command of the colored (Third) division; and while at Chaffin's Farm, General Weitzel, who had been acting as chief of staff to General Butler, succeeded Ord in command of the corps. The Eighteenth, under Weitzel, was also engaged at the battle of Fair Oaks, October 27, 1864, which was fought on the old battle field of 1862.

    On December 3, 1864, the corps was ordered discontinued. The white troops of the Tenth and Eighteenth Corps were organized into one corps, designated as the Twenty-fourth; the colored troops belonging to the Tenth and Eighteenth were organized as another, which was designated the Twenty-fifth. The regiments of the Eighteenth were formed into a division of three brigades, which became Devens' (3d) Division of the Twenty-fourth Corps.

    As the Eighteenth Corps was to remain in Virginia with the Army, it is difficult to understand what good reason the War Department could have had for thus wiping out the honored name under which the corps had fought so long and well...

    In the playtest, if the 50,000-man coastal invasion force signified an extraordinary strategic commitment by the Union AI to coastal ops, then maybe. But if that was just supposed to be an ordinary effort, as part of an overall Union strategy with the major commitments elsewhere, then 50,000 seems excessive.

    I don't know how much control you as Union AI coder have over this, but FWIW this is more food for thought.

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 235
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/9/2012 7:01:41 PM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    On the contrary, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_American_Civil_War, there is this:

    quote:

    Many generals, particularly early in the war, preferred to use Napoleonic tactics, despite the increased killing power of period weaponry. They marched their men out in tightly closed formations, often with soldiers elbow-to-elbow in double-rank battle lines, usually in brigade (by mid-war numbering about 2,500-3,000 infantrymen) or division (by mid-war numbering about 6,000-10,000 infantrymen) strength.

    Also, at http://www.civilwarhome.com/armyorganization.htm, there is this:

    quote:

    DIVISIONS: In field armies on both sides in the Civil War, the division was the second largest unit. In ascending order of size, units were: company, regiment brigade, division, corps. Theoretically, company strength was 100; regiment, 1,000; brigade, 4,000; and division, 12,000. Occasionally, more often in the Confederate army battalions of 2 to 10 companies were accepted into the ranks. In the Union army, the actual numbers, by the attrition of war, were only 40-50% of those figures by 1863; the percentage was higher in the Confederate army, thanks to its system of assigning recruits to existing regiments instead of creating new regiments.

    So, referring to the previous post, if the NC-based 18th Corps in February 1863 had a roster of five divisions, this last factoid -- that your typical Union division numbered 12,000 men -- suggests that a 50,000-man Union coastal invasion force is not excessive at all. Most Union regiments fell short of the theoretical 1,000 max. If we assume that the regiments in William F. "Baldy" Smith's mid-1862, earlier war invasion force were typically from 1,000 down to ~850, then a 5-division corps, like the Real War 18th Corps, would indeed be ~50,000 men.

    So maybe I correct myself. Maybe the playtest 50,000 coastal ops force is beyond question.

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 236
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/9/2012 10:16:19 PM   
    Chliperic


    Posts: 958
    Joined: 3/21/2010
    Status: offline
    That's too a recurrent problem of AACW, as units are often at full strenght when the older ones were genrally badly depleted and not recompleted with new recruits. Depleted rgts were merged into brigade, that have more mand Rgts for the same number of soldiers. That's impossible to simulate in AACW as units are builyt by birgades and you can't merge brigades.

    Now, a 50,000 men force for coastal ops Imo isn't unplausible. Grand devised an invasion plan of Northern Carolina for 1864 that was rebuked by Lincoln. This plan would have be based on a 80,000 men force. The 1862 campaign of the Peninsula necessitated the sea trasfer of the whole Army of the Potomac and in the same months, Farragut led a small but sizeable force against New Orleans.

    Union could have done more in coastal ops, and if needed could have raised the needed fleet for. Even if operations were important in numbers, it was much of the time limited to the seizure of an harbor. Alomost never Union adopted a plan based on deep operations from a coastal beachead. Supply nightmare played a role, but I consider too this lack of ambition as a result of disdain from Army leaders to naval operations and frictions between Land and Naval commanders who surfaced from the start until the end of the war.

    Then, there's an exception: McClellan in 1862, who devised what will remain the best plan to seize Richmond. Grant in 1864 was forced to take the land approach but the Army of the James was a legacy of McClellan experience. Moreover, in some way, the crossing of the James in 1864 by Grant shows he was aware of the firm soundness of McClellan plan.

    Now, for AI, no I can't limit the forces for amphibious ops. Now, in the current state of SVF, the lack of priority for kentucky is eventually creating a surpluse in troops on the Atlantic coast.

    _____________________________

    Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
    Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

    http://moddercorner.com/

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 237
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/10/2012 3:19:32 AM   
    berto


    Posts: 4857
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: offline

    After reviewing the evidence, I concede the point. 50,000 is fine. After you fix overall balance to bolster Union efforts in the KY/TN theater, it will be even better.

    _____________________________

    Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
    PIKT, http://pikt.org
    Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
    AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

    (in reply to Chliperic)
    Post #: 238
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/18/2012 11:12:13 PM   
    Chliperic


    Posts: 958
    Joined: 3/21/2010
    Status: offline
    SVF 2.0 is taking a new direction, as I've decided to adapt my mod to the AJE engine, the latest iteration of the the AGE engine, AACW being the oldest brother

    On my blog, you will get news of the progress, that are faster than I expected. I'm currently into the graphical adaptation, and I'm looking to a release in 2 months.

    AJE engine will allow to use options and regional decisions for ACW, something I couldn't get right under the old AACW engine. It will be possible to go well beyond the AACW design,by portraying internal politics ( Fire Cameron or not?, How to deal with State Governors?) and diplomacy. Use of engagements points will be the basis to fire the Emancipation Act, as Union player will need to earn a lot of them to buy the option. That's only a few of the new possibilities SVF 2.0 will offer, while keeping its strong AI and the previous feature.

    Anyone interested is welcome in the boat. Gfx, ideas of events, or anything is welcome.

    _____________________________

    Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
    Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

    http://moddercorner.com/

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 239
    RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Coastal Ops! - 11/20/2012 10:29:48 PM   
    Chliperic


    Posts: 958
    Joined: 3/21/2010
    Status: offline
    BTW, as SVF 2.0 will now be a AJE mod technically, the future news will be given in the mod subforum of this game .

    _____________________________

    Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
    Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

    http://moddercorner.com/

    (in reply to Chliperic)
    Post #: 240
    Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray >> RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- He Went Thataway! Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.133