I can't be this good

[rasnell]

I'm using the 1.06.1 patch, in only my second campaign, and the first time playing the French Indian War.

I won very easily at the normal setting, with normal aggression and AI detection at low bonus.

I can't be this good and will now try going to the next level of difficulty. I'm posting this in hopes of being helpful to Pocus about whether this sounds right with the game engine at the normal setting.

I was playing the French (inspired that the French are the good guys since they develop software as good as this). I held every single objective with 24 turns to go. The Brits had much larger forces, in much better positions, to really hit me head on at Albany -- or any other objective (because I was spread pretty thinly).

I kept waiting for the big hit. They made moves toward Montreal, but never went farther than fighting and holding Crown Point for a while. When I tired of waiting for the big conflict, I figured I would commit suicide by pushing into Boston and New York. I easily captured Boston and held it. The Brits abandoned Crown Point and did bounce me out of New York when time ran out.

But for 24 turns, with the game ending, the Brits made no real attempt to knock me out of Albany or any other major objective. They were content to concentrate all forces in one spot and then sit.

In the whole campaign, there were many turns with no attacks at all, allowing me to continue amassing a lead and roll up more strategic and objective cities.

Have I become this good, just by all my reading and posting on the forums? I'm sure I'm not, with my blunders and feeble attempts to figure things out.

Or will I notice a significantly harder time by going to the next setting? Is the AI detection bonus or more "think" time for the AI a dramatic way to influence these results?

I'm really asking myself and will experiment and find out. But I also wanted to post in case this seemed like the Brits are too timid even with the 1.06.1 patches.

I still don't see any real advantage to building forts or depots, etc., even though the distances are quite considerable in the French Indian War. It certainly didn't seem to hurt me. Am I missing something in the strategic importance of doing this? Will this become a big deal at the harder settings?

[Henry D.]

Well, I haven't played any FAIW-scenario with 1.06.1 yet, but in the WoI-Scenarios the AI seems nothing less but timid, it almost always takes the opportunity to hit me where I'm weak, goes after my field armies instead of sitting around idly (it even breaks off sieges to pursue major forces of mine ) and, "worst" of all, it does no longer just besiege towns and fortresses indefinetely, but assaults them if the odds are clearly in its favour. Defeating the players armies now seems to be a higher priority for the AI than just grabbing objective towns, which, in my book, is quite realistic and a major improvement.

Playing the British in 1775, I can no longer afford to go along with my old strategy of sitting around in Boston while detaching large portions of the army to invade other major Ports along the coast and wait it out until the reenforcements arrive in 1776, the Continentals will now relentlessly storm my beachheads one after another, Boston first and foremost... leure:

I'm playing on "normal" settings only, too (I'm not a fan of AIs getting even small bonuses), but with all AI behaviours and more AI time enabled, so maybe that is a considerable factor for a challenging AI (or, maybe, I'm just a bad player... )

IMHO, the AI improvements in 1.06 have beefed up the game considerably and playing BoA on normal settings now is much more of a challenge than playing many other games on harder settings!

[Korrigan]

We are having a discussion on the French forum about the 1755 Campaign, which many of us feel it to be too easy for the French side.

Tomorow, I will try to translate the main points we're looking at in order to allow the whole community to take part.

Best,

Korri

[PhilThib]

I'd appreciate the feedback, because I am currently working out some blanacing scripted events in favor of England to limit French overwhelming early successes...

[Enisign Jumonville]

I played the game for the first time this week and as a great F&I War fan and re-enactor plumped for the Annus Mirabilis scenario playing the French.
I won with only a few turns to spare but I must admit it did seem a little too simple. (However I am playing 1.05)
I delivered a crushing blow to Albany with a speedy march down Lake Champlin early but the brits made no attempt to regroup an army, they seemed to just hover around in groups of one or two units (unless perhaps they were locked garrison troops?) After building up nearly all of my forces around Albany, Oswego fell quite easily as it became surrounded by Indians to the west, my boats to the north and Montcalm to the east.
The largest Brit force I encountered was in the North East by Acadia which remained in place for the whole game to besiege three companies of Milice.
Although it was nice to win a first game and not be punished for my mistakes which were numerous as I am still learning the game, (For example I forgot I sent Levis out into the wilderness and trying to march him back into the action too early in the year killing most of his troops! Also failing to load and then sending off flotillas without anyone inside them.) the text makes out it is a pretty tough job for the French even to hold onto Carillon.
Nice to hear others thoughts

[Korrigan]

Game Facts:

During the first years of the French and Indian War campaign, the French enjoy a short but overwhelming superiority.

Taking advantage of this superiority, an agressive French player can easily take Oswego, Albany by the end of 1755 and even push his luck in attempting to seize New-York (I did).

History facts and game play issues:

1)The first years of the FIW were indeed marked by French successes. However, at first the French army mainly reacted to British attacks. When Moncalm arrived and launched his attacks, it was on a "Hit and run" basis. The French troops arrived, took the Fort, blow it up and went back home.

[INDENT]Nothing in the game can actually explain Montcalm's tactic, except strategical stupidity (given he is supposed to be one the best leaders of the FIW). The player feels no reason to blow up captured forts. Usualy, he spends the winter in then moves to the next one. [/INDENT]

2) True, British Prime minister Pitt had understood the political importance of North America, French royalty was focused on continental Europe. But the early French successes had paradoxically an adverse effect for Montcalm as the French military command did not feel the impetus to send more troops to North America where the things were going well... (and later the British Navy blockaded the French ports).

[INDENT]Even after having take New-York in 1755, the French player still get more reinforcements.[/INDENT]

3) Montcalm hated the Indians, he did not understand them and he was having huge problems with the French canadians. The local government in Mont Royal was quite corrupted too...

[INDENT]In the game, the French military command is far more efficient than the British one, and excepted Vaudreuil low strategic rating, the turmoils in the French governance are not obvious.[/INDENT]

4) The indian warriors were operating along the French troops, and also lead some small raids on the Frontier.

[INDENT]Thanks to the absence of Command penalty, a French player can gather some uberstacks which can operate as some kind of sealth indian panzer divisions behind the British lines.... [/INDENT]

5) The Indian art of war (ie: kill the wounded prisonners to preserve their honour) had some very adverse effects on the French hierarchy (it was driving Montcalm mad) and on the British opinion (ie: After the Fort Henry slaughtering, the Louisbourg garrison was refused the honour of war).

[INDENT]The French player does not suffer from indian actions, he can set ablaze the whole British territory and therefore cut the supply of the British army without any reaction from the population .[/INDENT]


Propositions so far:

1) Script the destruction of forts and depots after capture by the French
Pb: I hate being compelled to do something without choice and without understanding why.

2) Award victory points for depots and forts destruction

3) Give fewer chariots of supply to the French
Note: Why not, the French had a mobility advantage on most of the British army because they were marching with few supply. But some British light infantery units adapted and did the same so it's much more of a choice.

4) Limit the capacity of the indians to stack in large bands

5) Steer milicia mobilisation in reaction to pillage or to the French advance in British territory.


NB: The IA had a tendancy to uselessly group its troops in Halifax, this has been partially fixed in 1.06

[Pocus]

ok read, I will take the time to check the FIW problem from an AI point of view.

Thanks for the report.

[Enisign Jumonville]

I like the possibility of the Indians being more of a wild card troop. Limits on stacking would be a good start as I did tend to use an Indian/Courer de Bois which became highly experienced, to harass the Brits all through North Carolina.

Could there be possibilities for Indians to desert in the middle of campaign or perhaps occasionally move of their own volition?

[Pocus]

1.07 has a revised command rule for 0 command point units, like indians. If you don't have the right ability (indian leader) then you will stay pay 2 CP even if the unit should cost 0. This will help balance uber stack with 1 french leader commanding 2 regular and 6 tribes for free (as they cost 0).

[Ardie]

One of the problems with AI in FIW scenarios is that "she" goes after the locked Indian tribes & villages instead of more important threats as French armies or raiding parties and forts. In my recent games the AI completely abandons Fort Cumberland which is a huge mistake and concentrates her forces in Virginia and then launches an attack against Catawba indians. Dieskau may attack Norwich or the Mohicans. Guess which is the important target.

I usually play a bit conservative and a careful style which works in the revolutionary campaigns (I've been able to destroy 2 British armies 75-76 in New England) but I haven't found a really good working strategy for the FIW grand campaign. I tend to conquer Fort Cumberland & Fort Oswego during the first 3 months and Albany in 57 but the lack of regular reinforcements and naval transports to reinforce the Montcalm's army with units from St. Domingue and Ft. Louisburg slows me down.

I like to capture forts not burn them as they give shelter and supplies so I don't need that much supplywagons. However, the French don't have that many supply units to beginwith unless they capture them from the Brits.

I could use some tips how use the Indians and Coureurs des Bois more efficiently not just as complements of regulars.

to Pocus:

I hope that both sides get specialist Euro-Indian leaders as well. I've read from somewhere that esp. Langlade and Dumas were highly respected among the tribes and therefore were fit to lead the natives into combat.

[Enisign Jumonville]

I don't know about the rest of you but I tend to use my light troops like this ;
While my armies are wintering or gathering at a fort, I detach the tribes and send them on month long circuits around the fort (although I don't seem to be able to do a complete circuit as putting them back to their original province cancels all movement) to spy out the any approaching enemies. Their speed and ability to live off the land make them perfect for this. If you put them on an aggresive posture they will raid and if they encounter an enemy force will usually get away unscathed

[rasnell]

I started this thread about how easily I won as the French on normal. Well, I got a huge dose of humble pie when I switched to the Brits and hard. Was never in the game, but the challenge is excellent.

Seems to me that Louisbourg and Quebec and naval control might be more important than I thought, as the Brits, rather than grinding it out so slowly to capture Norwich, Albany, Montreal, Oswego, and hold onto the back door at Boston.

[Ardie]

One solution to help the Brits at the beginning of the Grand Campaign would be that their militia doesn't disband when January 1756 arrives. I usually lose all my New England & New York militia at that time. With 1.06.1 installed I haven't lost any of my colonial regular regiments (what a relief!!)

The French also could use their sole militia regiment at Fort Beausejour in Acadia and Trois Rivieres hasn't produced one single militia unit in my games.

Just my 2 cents...

[PhilThib]

I am working currently on a fix: the disband rate of the English militia has been reduced by 25%, that should help a bit...