RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory

Matrix Games Forums

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 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory

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 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/14/2012 1:04:48 AM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Battle results: once again, you have't fought against Banks, only against one Union Corps.

Another interesting point to ponder: If the Union AoP outnumbered its Confederate counterpart by ~190,000 to ~80,000 in the region, why did it commit to battle just a single corps? Yes, as a commander, Banks falls far short of Lee. But Banks had the numbers.

No doubt it's an engine thing, and likely not something that you as a modder can control.

_____________________________

Campaign Series Legion, https://cslegion.com/
CS Lead Coder http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1515
PzB Lead Coder http://johntillersoftware.com/PanzerBattles.html
CWB Lead Coder http://johntillersoftware.com/CivilWarBattles.html

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 151

SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Defeat - 10/14/2012 3:16:30 AM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121012. Late August 1862. Union AI, Confederate Human.

Lee's First Defeat.

In order to retake Charlottesville VA, Lee gambled by sending Jackson south. Banks seized the opportunity to again attack Lee at Manassas. The outnumbered Lee was bested:

Things have suddenly gotten more complicated in the east:

With the seemingly permanent threat to our western Virginian flank, I'm thinking it's maybe time to abandon Manassas and withdraw to the Rappahannock, thereby shortening our lines. Too soon for that?

In KY/TN, it's near total Fog of War. Where did the Union forces go off hiding to?

Union Morale 88, VPs 1506, Combat Losses 61789

Confederate Morale 133, VPs 1689, Combat Losses 52505

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 152

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/14/2012 4:08:11 AM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Army size and battle duration are under scrutiny.

Perhaps the best and natural solution to the army size problem is to draw forces away from the eastern theater to augment the central theater and coastal areas. Without coastal ops, and with just half-hearted efforts in the center, in the Real War I imagine that the Union, too, might have been able to field 180,000-man armies in the east.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 153

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/14/2012 7:51:56 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Army size and battle duration are under scrutiny.

Perhaps the best and natural solution to the army size problem is to draw forces away from the eastern theater to augment the central theater and coastal areas. Without coastal ops, and with just half-hearted efforts in the center, in the Real War I imagine that the Union, too, might have been able to field 180,000-man armies in the east.

Sure, even if the most plausible cause could be a slightly exxagerated rate of unit building for Union AI. Trial and testing process :-). Nothing impossible to tweak :-)

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 154

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/14/2012 7:54:58 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Battle results: once again, you have't fought against Banks, only against one Union Corps.

Another interesting point to ponder: If the Union AoP outnumbered its Confederate counterpart by ~190,000 to ~80,000 in the region, why did it commit to battle just a single corps? Yes, as a commander, Banks falls far short of Lee. But Banks had the numbers.

No doubt it's an engine thing, and likely not something that you as a modder can control.

Think about afew battles where some corps were fighting alone when the rest of the Army a few kilometers away wasn't even aware of the fight. Or Chancellorville, where a large part of Union forces remained idle when a part of the Army was attacked...

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 155

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/14/2012 8:00:24 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Army size and battle duration are under scrutiny.

Good. Probably don't matter to many players, but certainly irk ACW grognards like me.

quote:

Battle results: once again, you have't fought against Banks, only against one Union Corps. Look at the battle results panel: there's no Union 3 stars General, only a 2 stars one. So the uNion corps was heavily hammered by your more larger Confederate Army, explaining both battle duration and loopsided losses.

Right. I had forgotten that. Confusing nonetheless.

quote:

About Grant, only new games with the latest version will fix this. On this point, your current game results are more and more below the current Union AI strength.

I failed to mention: I see much Union activity at sea, and many fleets sailing up and down the Atlantic coast. But nothing beyond that yet.

At what point would I best abandon this game, and start over? Or is this still giving useful feedback?

IMO, it would be now better to start a fresh game. In my own current new test game, the Union AI has disembarked an infantry brigade and a cavalry regiment in Florida in September 61. After having captured a coastal city, the target is Ft Marion. However, there's yet no naval bombardment of the fort. I'm going to wait a few more months in the game to chack why.

On the contrary, UnioN AI is very present in Kentucky; your own test has showed Missouri Arkansas and Eastern Virginia were rightly handed by Union AI after the first months phase, whith right paths of offensive and without catastrophic failures due to a cut of Union supply lines, that is satisfactory. Union AI may go deep but there's no madness in the moves.

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 156

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/14/2012 10:00:00 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

I've found a bug allowing Union AI to build too many units. Next version will be released today.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 157

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/14/2012 4:05:50 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Battle results: once again, you have't fought against Banks, only against one Union Corps.

Another interesting point to ponder: If the Union AoP outnumbered its Confederate counterpart by ~190,000 to ~80,000 in the region, why did it commit to battle just a single corps? Yes, as a commander, Banks falls far short of Lee. But Banks had the numbers.

No doubt it's an engine thing, and likely not something that you as a modder can control.

Think about afew battles where some corps were fighting alone when the rest of the Army a few kilometers away wasn't even aware of the fight. Or Chancellorville, where a large part of Union forces remained idle when a part of the Army was attacked...

Perryville being another example.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 158

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/15/2012 7:34:53 AM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

IMO, it would be now better to start a fresh game.

Okay. But I may not be able to do that until Wednesday. Nothing to report for the next couple of days.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 159

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/15/2012 8:06:00 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

My own test game with the latest version has been noticeable by the AI union blitz in MO and Arkansas, as they have captured Springfield, Fayetteville, Ft Smith and come to the gates of Little Rocks. In the East, A 20,000 strong column led by Burnside is sieging Petersburg, when in the same time my main force is facing McClellan main Army at Manassas. In the Shenadoah, Johnston is trying to smash first small Union stacks coming from WV before attacking Mansfield occupying Harper's Ferry...The Kentucky has just been invaded by Morth, the very first turn after I decided to neter the State.

Conclusion: to the exception of coastal ops, the Union AI has performed as intended during these first months ( October 1861).

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 160

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/15/2012 9:03:19 AM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

My own test game with the latest version has been noticeable by the AI union blitz in MO and Arkansas...

That concerns me somewhat. I am concerned that, compared to the Real War, in the SVF west there is too much campaigning. When playing the SVF west, the word "frenetic" comes to mind. In the Real War, wasn't it rather slower paced and even "sleepy"?

Aside from that, and the coastal ops issue, the rest of what you describe sounds great. I look forward to playtesting it (beginning mid week).

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 161

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/15/2012 4:47:15 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

That concerns me somewhat. I am concerned that, compared to the Real War, in the SVF west there is too much campaigning. When playing the SVF west, the word "frenetic" comes to mind. In the Real War, wasn't it rather slower paced and even "sleepy"?

Aside from that, and the coastal ops issue, the rest of what you describe sounds great. I look forward to playtesting it (beginning mid week).

I didn't ptotected Springfield, MO to test the Union AI

Now, let's imagine what Lion would have done if he would have survived and won at Springfield? And Curtis campaign starting from Rolla in January 1862 and coming close to Little Rocks in may 1862? A bit slower than in my current game, but Union is advancing in Summer, not in harsh winter...

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 162

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory - 10/15/2012 5:17:10 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

Just to add in my current GC, Union AI plays without bonus for activation...

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 163

SVF 2.0 public beta 20121018 -- localization bug - 10/18/2012 9:39:48 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121018. Early June 1861. Union AI, Confederate Human.

Localization bug in message box: "2/8. evt_nam_CSA_StLouis1861"

And another, in the gazette (when clicking on the above): "evt_txt_CSA_StLouis1861"

< Message edited by berto -- 10/18/2012 10:54:42 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 164

SVF 2.0 public beta 20121018 -- The Gathering Storm - 10/18/2012 10:53:55 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121018. Early July 1861. Union AI, Confederate Human.

The Gathering Storm.

Early moves. Determined Union attempts to take Grafton VA. Skirmishing out west.

Union Morale 92, VPs 241, Combat Losses 625

Confederate Morale 99, VPs 344, Combat Losses 805

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

< Message edited by berto -- 10/18/2012 11:25:40 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 165

SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- First Blood, First Mana... - 10/20/2012 3:20:59 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Early August 1861. Union AI, Confederate Human.

First Blood.

The (predictable) Battle of First Manassas:

A very nice first significant Southern victory. Followed by an unfortunate withdrawal to the southwest:

Elsewhere: Grafton VA has fallen. As have Lexington MO, Jefferson MO, and Rolla MO out west.

Union Morale 95, VPs 336, Combat Losses 5040

Confederate Morale 105, VPs 442, Combat Losses 4475

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 166

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- First Blood, First ... - 10/20/2012 4:02:23 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

At the current save point (see previous post), look at these Drafts & Financials screens:

In both cases:

quote:

You must wait 11 turns(s) before picking it again.

In previous games, I don't remember the turn waits being quite so long. I really have to wait until February 1862 before I can again select Call for Volunteers & Measured Exceptional Taxes? Ouch!

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 167

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- First Blood, First ... - 10/20/2012 4:42:29 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

The next turn, early August, Beauregard reverse marched northward towards Manassas. Jackson fast marched up from Fredericksburg to feint attack McDowell's rear at Fauquier VA (Manassas). Declining a fight, McDowell's Northeastern Virginia Army retreated to the friendly, safe confines of Alexandria (Fairfax VA). Manassas is securely ours once again. Life is good.

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 168

SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Richmond Threatened! - 10/20/2012 5:42:33 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Early September 1861. Union AI, Confederate Human.

Richmond Threatened!

In a most surprising (and risky? and implausible?) maneuver, McDowell marched right past Beauregard's unprotected east flank and lunged toward Richmond!

In hindsight, I can see it was a mistake not to return Jackson to defend Fredericksburg last month.

I might now rush Beauregard and/or Jackson southward to defend the Southern capital. Or direct Jackson (and ?) to counterstrike towards a seemingly vulnerable Washington DC. In any event, cut off McDowell's precariously long lines of communications.

What to do, what to do?

Tense, very tense...

Union Morale 95, VPs 477, Combat Losses 5190

Confederate Morale 108, VPs 540, Combat Losses 4965

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 169

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- Richmond Threatened! - 10/20/2012 6:09:47 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Early September 1861. Union AI, Confederate Human.

Richmond Threatened!

In a most surprising (and risky? and implausible?) maneuver, McDowell marched right past Beauregard's unprotected east flank and lunged toward Richmond!

Surprising and risky, yes, even if SVF AI is genrally aware of LOS importance.

Implausible, indeed. Now, bypassing Lee's Army was tried by Grant several times during the 1864 campaign. Considering the AACW map and 15 days turn, this move on Richmond has been designed ( yes) to allow a sort of replica od this. here we are confronted to the WEGO problem; only pure computer wargame players will routinely consider WEGO is intrinsically superior in realism to IGOUGO system. In reality, boardgames based on IGOUGO system with a opponent reaction phase during movement of the other side are certainly closer to the truth in simulating AACW...

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 170

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- First Blood, First ... - 10/20/2012 6:15:55 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

At the current save point (see previous post), look at these Drafts & Financials screens:

In both cases:

quote:

You must wait 11 turns(s) before picking it again.

In previous games, I don't remember the turn waits being quite so long. I really have to wait until February 1862 before I can again select Call for Volunteers & Measured Exceptional Taxes? Ouch!

I haven't changed frequency. Your memory is mistaken on this. Certainly because in offcial AACW resources are so much abundant you don't have to care for. IN SVF, especially for CSA, you have limited resources. Hence the utility of the Printing money option In my own test games, I'm genrally around 20% of inflation at the beginning of 1862. Above 30, NM begins to suffer...
For WSU and money, building Brig for blockade running is very useful. For men, conscription in 1862 will become certainly almost unavoidable, costing NM....

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 171

SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Lee We Trust - 10/20/2012 7:16:24 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Late September 1861. Union AI, Confederate Human.

In Lee We Trust.

We sent Jackson northward to attack Alexandria. (Note reference in the message box to a nice naval engagement in the James Estuary.)

Johnston was supposed to demonstrate towards Harper's Ferry but ended up attacking the place:

Leaving Beauregard to protect our forward Manassas encampment, we threw everything else across central Virginia at Richmond. Richmond held!

We must place every last defender at Richmond under R.E. Lee's capable command. Nay, more than capability, we need his genius now. In Lee We Trust!

(I believe I saw Burnside crossing the Peninsula to reinforce McDowell's army at Richmond. Curious.)

Fortunately, Richmond is not besieged, so we still have (limited) possibilities of reinforcing the capital.

Union Morale 94, VPs 552, Combat Losses 10012

Confederate Morale 110, VPs 589, Combat Losses 7971

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 172

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Lee We Trust - 10/20/2012 7:26:02 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

If Lee can hold Richmond, and if McDowell doesn't retreat, his Army of Northeastern Virginia might be in a very precarious position indeed -- low on supply (I imagine), sizeable armies to his rear, LOC cut off, and with the rains and mud of November fast approaching. If Richmond doesn't fall -- if, if, if -- can McDowell's army survive this?

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 173

SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Cooper We Bust! - 10/20/2012 8:34:29 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

SVF 2.0 public beta test 20121019. Early October 1861. Union AI, Confederate Human.

Unfortunately, Cooper has ranking superiority over Lee. And (like Lee), he is locked in place in Richmond, so I can't dispatch him elsewhere. So Cooper takes command of the defense of Richmond, and ...

In Cooper We Bust!

A grim picture:

Richmond is lost!

Recovering from this will be a challenge (to say the least).

In hindsight, I clearly should have moved Beauregard and Jackson south to save the capital. None of this fancy counterthreaten the Northern capital and strangle McDowell's LOC stuff. I gambled, and lost.

But how is the Union Army of the Potommac -- now commanded by McClellan, note -- supplied? (Across the Potomac and Rappahannock to the east? Um...)

Is there yet a chance to bottle up the Union AoP in Richmond and starve it to death? Especially with autumn, then winter, nearly upon us?

A Union Pyrrhic victory?

But observe the catastrophic turnaround in the respective NMs:

Union Morale 139, VPs 675, Combat Losses 14352

Confederate Morale 59, VPs 598, Combat Losses 12957

Saves, Logs, Scripts available here.

< Message edited by berto -- 10/20/2012 8:37:07 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 174

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Cooper We Bust! - 10/20/2012 8:45:25 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

As the dev has recently stated here:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?26657-Supply-Source-Path&p=251873&viewfull=1#post251873

the supply system in AGE is very very lenient for gameplay purpose. Nothing can't be done against by modding, excepting slowing the supply movement and other rather secondary stuff. Now the AI is able to move with supply wagons, but it will eventually starve if LOS remains cut.

Now it's indeed unhistorical considering the hindrance Union put in foraging until 1862 at best, and the very cautious approach by Both political and military heads in the Esat. However, the Sherman march to the sea in 1864 involved a 100,000 men Army without any technical improvement for supply stuff since the start of the war. So an Army moving to Richmond unsupplied and foraging to survive isn't physically impossible.

McClellan in command: SVF events. Lee will get the same treatment in future versions, once I will have defined how to depict his not so glorious first months in WV...

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 175

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Cooper We Bust! - 10/20/2012 8:46:54 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

Oh BTW I promised to deliver the Fatal Years AI to AACW. Done

. The AI can win.

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 10/20/2012 8:47:38 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 176

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Cooper We Bust! - 10/20/2012 9:18:44 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

As the dev has recently stated here ... the supply system in AGE is very very lenient for gameplay purpose.

A lesson learned.

quote:

Now it's indeed unhistorical considering the hindrance Union put in foraging until 1862 at best, and the very cautious approach by Both political and military heads in the East...

Especially with McDowell and now McClellan in command -- neither particularly know for their boldness or aggressiveness.

In retrospect (and in addition to earlier observations about Jackson & Beauregard): What did I hope to accomplish by leaving Johnston in the Valley, much less "demonstrate" towards Harper's Ferry? With the Confederate capital near capture, what interest would the Union (AI) have in the Harper's Ferry sideshow that it would rush back to defend it (and Alexandria, for that matter)?

Doh! What was I thinking? Was I thinking?

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 177

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Cooper We Bust! - 10/20/2012 9:22:06 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Oh BTW I promised to deliver the Fatal Years AI to AACW. Done . The AI can win.

All hope of victory may now be lost. But I'm going to see if I can isolate and destroy McClellan's AoP at Richmond. Should be interesting to try.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 178

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Cooper We Bust! - 10/20/2012 9:28:09 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 959
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

Now it's indeed unhistorical considering the hindrance Union put in foraging until 1862 at best, and the very cautious approach by Both political and military heads in the East...

Especially with McDowell and now McClellan in command -- neither particularly know for their boldness or aggressiveness.

Now I'm sure to have a dangerous Union AI, I may work to curb it in a more historical flavor: I will certainly reduce the union AI aggro in the first year, most often, even if I will keep a probability to keep the current aggro level, for replayability sake ( and to force Confederate player to be a bit more cautious than the official version of AACW allows.

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 179

RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121019 -- In Cooper We Bust! - 10/20/2012 10:00:50 PM

berto

Posts: 18542
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

It's an interesting conundrum:

Do you program the AI for the game, and have it do clever moves?

Do you program the AI for the history, and have it do plausible moves?

I tend to think more in historical terms, not in gaming terms. So I misled myself to disregard the possibility of such ahistorical Union boldness. My bad.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray >> RE: SVF 2.0 public beta 20121012 -- Lee's First Victory