Gently, boys, gently now. I can't speak for Pocus (and would not wish to do so), but I think the point is that he would prefer posters to think and test through perceived problems with the game before asking that his attention be turned to addressing them.
From my point of view, that makes sense. I was falling victim to the "hey, this must be wrong 'cause I see it that way and somebody needs to pay attention RIGHT NOW" syndrome and decided to shut up and just play the game. I find that many "wrong" things turn out being pretty "right" when I stop to analyze and understand them.
I have identified a number of things that seem odd or that I would like to see changed, but I stopped posting about it several weeks ago due to the concerns identified above. I think we could stand to play more and b1tch less.
Of course, when I do raise concerns, I am heard with deference and my suggestions are always followed ... just look at the success I had in keeping HQ units in the game ...
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I think I have come to terms with the main problem here.
It isn't about the firepower of an Ironclad or a Coastal Artillery, but their ability to take hits.
Each unit is made up of hits, and men per hit. It is kind of like hit points, with a unit taking a hit losing certain number of men.
Vanilla (un modded) infantry have 20 hits at 50 men per hit (20 x 50 = 1000 men). This means, in battle, a unit can take 20 hits before it is wiped out (i.e., loses all 1000 men). Other factors come into play as to how a hit is taken vs. shrugged off, but when push comes to shove, this is the lifeblood of a unit.
Lets compare Coastal Artillery and Ironclads.
Here are their hits, and men per hit.
Ironclad
Hits = 30
Men per hit = 6
Total Crew = 180
Coastal Artillery
Hits = 6
Men per hit = 25
Total Crew = 150
Here is where the difference comes into play, and where we do see that Coastal Artillery really does have a major advantage over Ironclads, the problem for coastal artillery is, they cannot take nearly as many hits (1/5 as many) as an ironclad. After armour and entrenchment factors are taken into account, an ironclad can take 5x as many hits before being eliminated as a coastal artillery.
The fact that coastal artillery dishes out as much damage as they do, and survives as long as they do, is a tribute to their real power. The problem is, 6 lucky hits and you lose your Coastal Battery. It takes 30 hits to sink an ironclad (put 12 ironclads up against 1 coastal battery, and of course the battery will lose).
Naval forces are designed by AGEOD to have more hits than men per hit, meaning that they can take a lot of damage (most have a greater value for 'hits' than 'men per hit') while land units are significantly weaker (most have a greater value for 'men per hit' than 'hits').
Stonewall mentioned he tried a modification to his infantry forces to alter the 'hits' and 'men per hit' values for land forces, to have fewer lost per hit. I tried it myself, and you end up with singificantly lower total units lost. You still have a unit taking X hits, but now it takes X+Y hits to eliminate the formation. In most cases, the formation can survive the battle to recieve reinforcements (so you repair a unit instead of rebuilding a unit).
So, try changing the rate of hits and men per hits for coastal artillery, to a value such as 15 hits and 10 men per hit (still 150 men total) and see how they fare in a duel against bombarding vessels. Chances are they will survive the battle in better shape than before. Since it is really actually very hard to score a hit on coastal artillery (we know this as they have lasted so long with being able to take only 6 hits), this may alleviate the problem of these units being so easy to crack with large numbers of ironclads (who really do take loads of damage, but they currently can absorb it much better).
*Coastal Artillery has better range, does about 2x the amount of damage.
*Ironclads have greater initiative, better protection.
The "problem" is (if you call it so) that naval and land units currently operate on different 'levels' of taking casualties. Land combat is significantly more bloody than naval combat, a hit on land is much more violent than a hit at sea (done in order to represent the bloodiness of land battles, and how at sea it was very hard to 'eliminate' a foe). The "problem" is when the two meet. Naval combat is designed for longevity and slight casualties, land combat is designed for short bloody conflicts. Naval vessels take damage as if they are fighting other naval vessels, while land units take damage as if they are fighting other land units. Any unit bombarded will take a greater proportion of damage than what they can inflict on a naval vessel. All things equal, a Coastal Battery should, and does, easily chew up Ironclads. The problem is, they don't have enough hits to last long enough when up against a load of determined Ironclads (who simply can take more damage than a coastal gun, who actually dishes out significantly more damage than an Ironclad).
Personally, I am revamping all land units to increase the number of hits they can take, decreasing the number of men per hit (amongst other flavour changes, such as limiting regiment size to 600, instead of 1000). This appears to lower the number of units wiped out, resulting in much more 'repairing' you have to do after a battle (vs. totally rebuilding). Casualties are still high, but rarely is a unit completely wiped out (a very long battle resulted in 1/3 of my units wiped out, with the remaining 2/3 damaged, previously would have resulted in 100% wiped out).
It isn't about the firepower of an Ironclad or a Coastal Artillery, but their ability to take hits.
Each unit is made up of hits, and men per hit. It is kind of like hit points, with a unit taking a hit losing certain number of men.
Vanilla (un modded) infantry have 20 hits at 50 men per hit (20 x 50 = 1000 men). This means, in battle, a unit can take 20 hits before it is wiped out (i.e., loses all 1000 men). Other factors come into play as to how a hit is taken vs. shrugged off, but when push comes to shove, this is the lifeblood of a unit.
Lets compare Coastal Artillery and Ironclads.
Here are their hits, and men per hit.
Ironclad
Hits = 30
Men per hit = 6
Total Crew = 180
Coastal Artillery
Hits = 6
Men per hit = 25
Total Crew = 150
Here is where the difference comes into play, and where we do see that Coastal Artillery really does have a major advantage over Ironclads, the problem for coastal artillery is, they cannot take nearly as many hits (1/5 as many) as an ironclad. After armour and entrenchment factors are taken into account, an ironclad can take 5x as many hits before being eliminated as a coastal artillery.
The fact that coastal artillery dishes out as much damage as they do, and survives as long as they do, is a tribute to their real power. The problem is, 6 lucky hits and you lose your Coastal Battery. It takes 30 hits to sink an ironclad (put 12 ironclads up against 1 coastal battery, and of course the battery will lose).
Naval forces are designed by AGEOD to have more hits than men per hit, meaning that they can take a lot of damage (most have a greater value for 'hits' than 'men per hit') while land units are significantly weaker (most have a greater value for 'men per hit' than 'hits').
Stonewall mentioned he tried a modification to his infantry forces to alter the 'hits' and 'men per hit' values for land forces, to have fewer lost per hit. I tried it myself, and you end up with singificantly lower total units lost. You still have a unit taking X hits, but now it takes X+Y hits to eliminate the formation. In most cases, the formation can survive the battle to recieve reinforcements (so you repair a unit instead of rebuilding a unit).
So, try changing the rate of hits and men per hits for coastal artillery, to a value such as 15 hits and 10 men per hit (still 150 men total) and see how they fare in a duel against bombarding vessels. Chances are they will survive the battle in better shape than before. Since it is really actually very hard to score a hit on coastal artillery (we know this as they have lasted so long with being able to take only 6 hits), this may alleviate the problem of these units being so easy to crack with large numbers of ironclads (who really do take loads of damage, but they currently can absorb it much better).
*Coastal Artillery has better range, does about 2x the amount of damage.
*Ironclads have greater initiative, better protection.
The "problem" is (if you call it so) that naval and land units currently operate on different 'levels' of taking casualties. Land combat is significantly more bloody than naval combat, a hit on land is much more violent than a hit at sea (done in order to represent the bloodiness of land battles, and how at sea it was very hard to 'eliminate' a foe). The "problem" is when the two meet. Naval combat is designed for longevity and slight casualties, land combat is designed for short bloody conflicts. Naval vessels take damage as if they are fighting other naval vessels, while land units take damage as if they are fighting other land units. Any unit bombarded will take a greater proportion of damage than what they can inflict on a naval vessel. All things equal, a Coastal Battery should, and does, easily chew up Ironclads. The problem is, they don't have enough hits to last long enough when up against a load of determined Ironclads (who simply can take more damage than a coastal gun, who actually dishes out significantly more damage than an Ironclad).
Personally, I am revamping all land units to increase the number of hits they can take, decreasing the number of men per hit (amongst other flavour changes, such as limiting regiment size to 600, instead of 1000). This appears to lower the number of units wiped out, resulting in much more 'repairing' you have to do after a battle (vs. totally rebuilding). Casualties are still high, but rarely is a unit completely wiped out (a very long battle resulted in 1/3 of my units wiped out, with the remaining 2/3 damaged, previously would have resulted in 100% wiped out).
Pocus wrote:For historical examples of successes, see how Stringham (Butler expedition against the Hatteras) managed to turn into rubble Forts Clarke and Morgan (by a clever combination of long rang fire and usage of steam power to fire and move rapidly) or how Fort Macon (Hatteras too, but at the south) was destroyed to rubble by ships guns.
Fort Clark doesn't sound like it was too tough. In fact, it seems only the really poorly prepared or equipped forts like Henry or Ft. Walker were taken by bombardment and surrender, while the more formidable positions were all but invulnerable to naval fire, like Charleston or Vicksburg.
A brief account from Ft. Clark:
"The inlet fortifications were not yet completed and only mounted a portion of the available artillery pieces when the Confederate defenders were attacked by a Union expeditionary force on August 27, 1861. The forts were shelled for two days by powerful gun batteries mounted onboard seven Union frigates and gunboats. On the first day of the engagement, Fort Clark’s gunners expended their ammunition stores with little effect on the distant warships and were forced to abandon the work when they could no longer return fire. By late morning on the second day of battle, the desperately outgunned Confederate forces inside Fort Hatteras succumbed to the hail of high explosive shrapnel that rained down on their exposed gun positions. While the Confederate gunners attempted to return fire, their cannon powder was damp from months of storage in the humid environment of Hatteras Inlet, and their outdated smoothbore artillery pieces were not particularly effective against the warships of the Union fleet. With Union forces on the beaches, and Fort Clark occupied by Federal troops, a white flag was raised over the ramparts of Fort Hatteras late in the morning of August 28th and the garrison was surrendered by the Confederate commander."
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nchyde/FTCLARK3.HTM
McNaughton wrote:Ironclad
Hits = 30
Men per hit = 6
Total Crew = 180
Coastal Artillery
Hits = 6
Men per hit = 25
Total Crew = 150
This is obviously a big part of the equation, and the 30 vs 6 relationship means that the ironclads are extremely robust in relation to the gun batteries.
For example in the Vicksburg test example above with results of:
for the artilleries:
LA Battery took 3 hits
Vicksburg artillery took 3 hits
TN Battery took no hits.
total 6
Porter Fleet:
Total 11 hits
The two batteries are now at half strength, while the gunboat fleet is merely scratched. So, the batteries have come off much the worse for the engagement.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
runyan99 wrote:This is obviously a big part of the equation, and the 30 vs 6 relationship means that the ironclads are extremely robust in relation to the gun batteries.
For example in the Vicksburg test example above with results of:
for the artilleries:
LA Battery took 3 hits
Vicksburg artillery took 3 hits
TN Battery took no hits.
total 6
Porter Fleet:
Total 11 hits
The two batteries are now at half strength, while the gunboat fleet is merely scratched. So, the batteries have come off much the worse for the engagement.
Change the hits and men per hits for coastal batteries and see what happens. I predict that the tide will turn toward the coastal batteries. Coastal units can get resupplied a lot faster than a naval unit (which must return to port, coastal batteries just stay where they are), meaning that in a prolonged engagement the Ironclads will have to put back to port to repair themselves before the coastal guns get eliminated. It will take a land operation in order to take the forts now.
It may take some balancing (as now coastal artillery will be overly effective against land units, so a complete re-balance may be in order, lowering the damage that units take along the board for land units). However, it is best to test these things out before making dastic changes. Don't want coastal guns becoming too powerful.
-
mikee64
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:13 am
- Location: Virginia
- Contact: Website
Pocus, as runyan said the batteries can certainly be destroyed, both the fort batteries and the coastal artillery - I have a game where the guns in both Ft. Caswell and Ft. Fisher have been totally destroyed by naval bombardment alone.
It seems McNaughton and others have hit on the core problem, but as is naval bombardment combined with "free" sailor replacements makes it tough on the CS, at least in PBEM.
It seems McNaughton and others have hit on the core problem, but as is naval bombardment combined with "free" sailor replacements makes it tough on the CS, at least in PBEM.
Overall though, I have to clarify.
My reading of history isn't that a battery in a fort or permanent entrenchment should be able to absorb more hits, putting it on more equal footing with an ironclad.
It is instead that a battery in a good fort wasn't likely to take many hits at all when faced with a naval bombardment, as per Charleston or Ft. Donelson. Or Ft. Sumter for that matter, although in that case the bombardment came from the other forts.
My method to tweak the game would be to increase the defensive bonus for forts and 7+ entrenchments so that batteries in such postions would be 95% proof from gunfire.
My reading of history isn't that a battery in a fort or permanent entrenchment should be able to absorb more hits, putting it on more equal footing with an ironclad.
It is instead that a battery in a good fort wasn't likely to take many hits at all when faced with a naval bombardment, as per Charleston or Ft. Donelson. Or Ft. Sumter for that matter, although in that case the bombardment came from the other forts.
My method to tweak the game would be to increase the defensive bonus for forts and 7+ entrenchments so that batteries in such postions would be 95% proof from gunfire.
Heheh, just erected a fort in Norfolk yesterday. Huger commanded the arty. Well, he had two new units of field arty and one unit of siege guns. The three units survived TWO turns. Actually, one field arty unit went down in ONE turn! Huger command absorbed something like 49 hits in just one naval bombardment. An after-battle like screen would be welcome for those artillery engagments to see how advanced you are on the path to utter destruction...
Cheers.
Cheers.
I'm not upset, but as pasternakski said, I just don't have the luxury to make tests for you. We are really willing at AGEOD's to improve things, I think our history shows that, but our time is always short. So you will do us a big favor, when you think there is a problem, to provide hard figures, not impressions.
That said, Philippe and I (Philippe too
) discussed the matter and we agree that one of the major problem perceived is the one rised by mcNaughton, coastal arties don't have many hits.
About the artillery destroyed or not. They can't be destroyed by naval bombardment, but can be if they initiate fire when a fleet run the gauntlet. And with 6 hits it can happens fast.
We will do a first 'broadside' of tweaks on naval guns for the next update, promised.
That said, Philippe and I (Philippe too
) discussed the matter and we agree that one of the major problem perceived is the one rised by mcNaughton, coastal arties don't have many hits.About the artillery destroyed or not. They can't be destroyed by naval bombardment, but can be if they initiate fire when a fleet run the gauntlet. And with 6 hits it can happens fast.
We will do a first 'broadside' of tweaks on naval guns for the next update, promised.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:That said, Philippe and I (Philippe too
About the artillery destroyed or not. They can't be destroyed by naval bombardment, but can be if they initiate fire when a fleet run the gauntlet. And with 6 hits it can happens fast.
Keep in mind that Coastal Artillery batteries aren't the only guns that can be present in the forts. The player can move regular batteries of 10lb Parrotts or 20lb Columbiads into the forts, which is perfectly historical, and those batteries are 6 hit units also.
Also, some places like Henry/Donelson don't have Coastal Artillery batteries in the game, and yet they performed pretty well historically.
I still think increasing the defensive bonus for brick and mortar forts is the way to go.
EDIT - Not to mention places with entrenched guns which are not coastal artillery, like Norfolk or the Yorktown peninsula, or probably even Vicksburg.
forts don't give free entrenchement levels, their effects cumulates with entrenchements (more firepower for artillery too).
We are seeing to reduce the damage done by ships and increasing a bit the damage dones by batteries, amongst some others things, so even if coastal artilleries will be much more enduring because of added hits, the others artilleries will get some punch too, but less. Also now ships will need some bucks to repair, so no free abusive bombardments along CSA coast every turn.
We are seeing to reduce the damage done by ships and increasing a bit the damage dones by batteries, amongst some others things, so even if coastal artilleries will be much more enduring because of added hits, the others artilleries will get some punch too, but less. Also now ships will need some bucks to repair, so no free abusive bombardments along CSA coast every turn.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
Adam the VIth
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:30 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Indian Country
Pocus wrote:I'm not upset, but as pasternakski said, I just don't have the luxury to make tests for you. We are really willing at AGEOD's to improve things, I think our history shows that, but our time is always short. So you will do us a big favor, when you think there is a problem, to provide hard figures, not impressions.
That said, Philippe and I (Philippe too
About the artillery destroyed or not. They can't be destroyed by naval bombardment, but can be if they initiate fire when a fleet run the gauntlet. And with 6 hits it can happens fast.
We will do a first 'broadside' of tweaks on naval guns for the next update, promised.
Excellent. Great job by McNaughton to spot a critical issue.
Pocus....thanks for the info on where to look for the results info....I know we need to test for you, no prob. You just seemed really mad that we were hounding you on this issue. I didn't mean to -- was just seeing it as an area that needed attention. My thanks are always with you all, you've created a game that I can't pull away from!
AC
-
mikee64
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:13 am
- Location: Virginia
- Contact: Website
Pocus wrote:About the artillery destroyed or not. They can't be destroyed by naval bombardment, but can be if they initiate fire when a fleet run the gauntlet. And with 6 hits it can happens fast.
Thanks, this is what happened to me as Wilmington was occupied by US and fleets were constantly running the forts. I should have said "naval fire alone" can destroy the guns, but you knew what I meant.
Mike
I spent some time trying to beef up Norfolk for the CSA. I had Magruder dig in with the help of engineer unit outside Norfolk. He had one coastal artillery unit (made in Georgia) and 20lb artillery unit. He was diging in, while Buchanan fleet of 4 ironclads pounded Fort Monroe. Magruder moment came with the arrival of Union fleet commanded by Pearson. He fired at Magruder and the latter responded with his guns. At the time of the bombardment Magruder was sitting in level 6 entrenchments.
He took 58 hits dealing 17 hits in return ( the Union fleet must have been mostly frigates).
Both Magruder Coastal artillery and 20lb artillery lost HALF of their men in this one engagement.
Definately not worth time and WS for making coastal units and digging in!!!
On the other hand, Buchanan's fleet was almost doing very well, taking hits from Monroe but mostly losing Cohesion and very little strength, defeating Union fleets (among them, Foote's) in the process.
It seems that the best way to protect Norfolk is simply assemble a POWERFUL stack of ironclads and let them attack anything around Fort Monroe.
He took 58 hits dealing 17 hits in return ( the Union fleet must have been mostly frigates).
Both Magruder Coastal artillery and 20lb artillery lost HALF of their men in this one engagement.
Definately not worth time and WS for making coastal units and digging in!!!
On the other hand, Buchanan's fleet was almost doing very well, taking hits from Monroe but mostly losing Cohesion and very little strength, defeating Union fleets (among them, Foote's) in the process.
It seems that the best way to protect Norfolk is simply assemble a POWERFUL stack of ironclads and let them attack anything around Fort Monroe.
just being constructive here.
I think this whole thing is turning into a debate on resources and when to decide on the matter.
The gamers would like to improve the game - and some tests are run - however we don't understand all the details. And Pocus is off course totally occupied with working on all this stuff.
So are we getting some feedback from the community and Imho we have to generate repeatable stuff and then dicuss into detail and decide what is priority and what not.
So - does this thread belong in the improvement sub-forum ? This is not a critic - but I noticed from the past that "happy" posters sometimes are posting information outside the thread focus. I also think we have to sticky some rules about how to report stuff. Like Paradox did a few years ago with their public beta on CK - how to report stuff is really important to work together on these issues. With the new rules at Paradox - the reporting was more like data gathering - with the minimum of subjective info and the maximum of objective info. I think that approach really improved the game.
I think this whole thing is turning into a debate on resources and when to decide on the matter.
The gamers would like to improve the game - and some tests are run - however we don't understand all the details. And Pocus is off course totally occupied with working on all this stuff.
So are we getting some feedback from the community and Imho we have to generate repeatable stuff and then dicuss into detail and decide what is priority and what not.
So - does this thread belong in the improvement sub-forum ? This is not a critic - but I noticed from the past that "happy" posters sometimes are posting information outside the thread focus. I also think we have to sticky some rules about how to report stuff. Like Paradox did a few years ago with their public beta on CK - how to report stuff is really important to work together on these issues. With the new rules at Paradox - the reporting was more like data gathering - with the minimum of subjective info and the maximum of objective info. I think that approach really improved the game.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests