AGEOD Forums

Hi there, one of my Pbem opponents pointed out to me that the 1.02 patch has been released on the matrix site (link below) is this the 1.02 official?

http://matrixgames.com/products/500/downloads/

And if it is, is it save compatible with games started with the 1.02beta?

Thanks

I was browsing these forums last night and discovered this link elsewhere. Looks official. I did download it and loaded the game just to see what would happen. It said version 1.02 -- no beta status. I have not played however, so, not sure.

I think it is, the same happened with the official ROP gold patch, somebody at Matrix likes releasing official patches early

Highlandcharge wrote:
And if it is, is it save compatible with games started with the 1.02beta?

Thanks

I was able to execute a full turn without problems. But I wound up starting a new game just to be safe.

Edit: Forgot to point out the post in the forum over at Matrix says it is not save-game compatible, but I don't know if he's referring to the beta patch or not.

Highlandcharge wrote:Hi there, one of my Pbem opponents pointed out to me that the 1.02 patch has been released on the matrix site (link below) is this the 1.02 official?

http://matrixgames.com/products/500/downloads/

And if it is, is it save compatible with games started with the 1.02beta?

Thanks

Thanks for the information ! Isn't there any communication about this official patch here at Ageod ??

By the way, the changelog is the same as 1.02 beta, there should be no problem with saves...

Indeed, that's the official patch, we will announce it in a specific post here, just to have everyone up to date.

Am I the only one thinking that the 'tweaks' made in 1.02 particularly the severe reduction in CSA recruitment, plus increase in WS plus the automatic blockading of Richmond from turn 1 combined constitute a step too far. I appreciate rebalancing was necessary but after testing 1.02 I think the game has now lurched too far in the opposite direction. A good CSA player against the AI can still do well. In 1.02 against the AI a good Union player has it too easy. In PEM mode, unless the Union player is inexperienced then getting the CSA to survive until anywhere close to the historical date (note I'm saying survive not win) is nigh on impossible.

What are others finding? Is it just me? Personnally I'd have preferred the adjustments to have been more gently introduced.

soundoff wrote:Am I the only one thinking that the 'tweaks' made in 1.02 particularly the severe reduction in CSA recruitment, plus increase in WS plus the automatic blockading of Richmond from turn 1 combined constitute a step too far. I appreciate rebalancing was necessary but after testing 1.02 I think the game has now lurched too far in the opposite direction. A good CSA player against the AI can still do well. In 1.02 against the AI a good Union player has it too easy. In PEM mode, unless the Union player is inexperienced then getting the CSA to survive until anywhere close to the historical date (note I'm saying survive not win) is nigh on impossible.

What are others finding? Is it just me? Personnally I'd have preferred the adjustments to have been more gently introduced.

It is tuff to build all the initial troops you need to get going. PBEM wise I am still testing. In single player the Union seems to be able to achieve nearly duobled amount of troops. Just an estimate.

I am also in a few pbem games, in 2 games I am playing (one as USA and one as the CSA).. and have reached April 1862 in both.

In this game I am the CSA...

The USA sees the CSA at 57% out of 100%, so the CSA has just over half the fighting power of the USA.

In the 2nd game I am the USA..

The USA sees the CSA at 53% out of 100%, so the CSA has just slightly over half of the fighting power of the USA.

This seems correct to me, anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Thanks

Highlandcharge wrote:I am also in a few pbem games, in 2 games I am playing (one as USA and one as the CSA).. and have reached April 1862 in both.

In this game I am the CSA...

The USA sees the CSA at 57% out of 100%, so the CSA has just over half the fighting power of the USA.

In the 2nd game I am the USA..

The USA sees the CSA at 53% out of 100%, so the CSA has just slightly over half of the fighting power of the USA.

This seems correct to me, anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Thanks

My take, for what its worth, is that a 2-1 ratio that early is too high given that there is no requirement at all for the North to protect its cities or infrastructure. I realise that there will always be a great deal of controversy over just how many were engaged on either side at any time. Below though are three links (I presume reputable sources) that tend to indicate that the ratio between the North and South remained at roughly 2-1 up until around the end of 64. Now I don't know of any game (given the new changes) where that ratio will not climb to 3 or even 4 to 1 by 64.

Dont get me wrong the CSA should indeed be a challenge and corrections in 1.01 needed to be made. Just that IMHO they have gone a tad too far.


http://www.civilwardata.com/dbstatus.html
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/
http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm

My observation is, that the CSA get too little money initially. Maybe raising it a bit making the blockade a bit more effective (maybe special bonusses for percentages in the box or of blockaded harbours) can do the trick already.

Thanks for those links soundoff, I will have a look through them

Maybe the answer would be to up the plantation conscript output from 1 to 2, that might do the trick (In the 1.02 it was changed from 3 to 1).

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Easy for me to make comments Highlandcharge I'm not a game developer. They certainly cannot please us all and who is to say that I'm right Just that I suspect that as happens generally in life - compensating for a mistake often leads to overcompensation. All I do know is that in my forthcoming rematch with Banks if I'm to hold him at all I have to rethink entirely my CSA strategy. Now maybe thats not a bad thing to do. All of a sudden though raising sufficient conscripts has become paramount. Ah well they never said that life would be easy and I do so like a challenge

CSA is still in a quite good position, conscript wise. It was abnormal that the ongoing conscript production was bigger in the South (because of Plantations) compared to the North. Also check the options giving conscripts, for both side. If you consider the historical ratio of recruitable population, this is still ahistorically in favor of the South.
Also, please consider the increased costs of heavy equipments, having a blue navy fleet now costs at least twice as much WSU as before for the North.

Doesn't the Union's blue water navy tilt the F9 page Cbt power balance in its favour? The historical data is going to reflect the respective land units, while F9 is going to include the naval units.

Pocus wrote:CSA is still in a quite good position, conscript wise. It was abnormal that the ongoing conscript production was bigger in the South (because of Plantations) compared to the North. Also check the options giving conscripts, for both side. If you consider the historical ratio of recruitable population, this is still ahistorically in favor of the South.
Also, please consider the increased costs of heavy equipments, having a blue navy fleet now costs at least twice as much WSU as before for the North.

As I posted earlier I'm quite willing to accept that my opinion is likely to be wrong. To date even though its early days from what I'm experiencing my view remains that the strengthening of the Union in 1.02 coupled with the weakening of the CSA is a combined step too far. I say that from the perspective of 'game balance' rather than historical accuracy. I am aware that the startup forces and the ability to recruit are 'ahistorical'. Then again so is the ability to purchase all of ones units in a single state in any given turn if that is what a player decides. So is a players decision to do whatever they like with troops raised .....etc etc.

Its just that I hope that getting the South beyond 63 does not become almost an impossibility unless the Union makes a total hash of things.

I have to agree. Before the changes in 1.02 the south was on track. It was only the Union that needed strengthening. With that, then a reassessment of Union War Supply could than be reviewed.

As it stands now the south is too weak. It could withstand the reduction in conscripts but coupled with the higher costs in WS of the better units and the blockading of Richmond, its early source of both money and WS, it starts in a position from which it is nearly impossible to recover.

In the early war both sides should be capable of rapid expansion.

The changes in Ship building for the CSA is also another undue difficulty. Brigs can’t be built in the SE or SW grand regions. Ironclads have become so expensive that a player would need to be mad to build on, should he find himself with the resources to do so, which is also unlikely.

Recruiting for the south is much too centralized and needs some dispersal. Tennessee is much too important. It accounts for about a third of all conscripts. Meantime Missouri provides none and Kentucky only one. Missouri, even though occupied by the end of 1861 provided over 50,000 troops. They are represented in the force pool but even taking St Louis provides no additional manpower, though for the Union it is a major source of conscripts, even when it is pro-Confederate.

We should not be turning the CSA into some powerhouse but we do need it to remain strong at least until 1864.

Ol Choctow, just out of interest, do you invest in building powder mills and Armorys when you play the South? I have found that if you put money into the CSA infrastructure as soon as possible in the game it helps a lot... I have also built quite a few brigs.

I am playing a pbem as the South against a good opponent, we are in mid 1862 and I am in a very strong position...

I have attached a picture of the objective screen, whats you thoughts on it?

[ATTACH]26109[/ATTACH]

My calculus, using my mentor and others is that this balance, the new one, is really excellent.
A game where the CSA has hope, but the Union also has an opportunity.

You know, I play both sides. The Union is usually the fun side to play. The balance, as historically, favors that side.

But for at least the first two years it should be a tense affair and even in the third it should present chances for reversals.

The southern player should be able to do a little better than historical because he can avoid some of the mistakes that were made.

Examples of this would be follow-up on their victory at Wilson’s Creek or Van Dorn’s force-march to Pea Ridge. Also their neglect of the rail system should be able to be rectified.

Beyond that they should have the resources to do what they did historically. That includes Ironclads and naval options, as well as the industrial builds.

There are no what ifs or speculations build in to the CSA force pool or industry. These are all historical. Most of there industry was preexisting. It should not be a serious burden to build it.

They should have a reasonable shot of having their whole force pool built by spring 63. The Union should also have their proper numbers.

It could mean that both sides need a bit more in resources.

I think both sides are underpowered. Not just the south but the recent changes make them very underpowered and unable to match historical accomplishments.

That is my objection. Even against the AI, I should not be able to win consistently in 62. This is when the south should present its greatest challenge to the Union, not being overwhelmed.

I know a good human player can last longer but that doesn’t mean that the handicap is not there.

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I have to agree. Before the changes in 1.02 the south was on track. It was only the Union that needed strengthening. With that, then a reassessment of Union War Supply could than be reviewed.

As it stands now the south is too weak. It could withstand the reduction in conscripts but coupled with the higher costs in WS of the better units and the blockading of Richmond, its early source of both money and WS, it starts in a position from which it is nearly impossible to recover.

In the early war both sides should be capable of rapid expansion.

The changes in Ship building for the CSA is also another undue difficulty. Brigs can’t be built in the SE or SW grand regions. Ironclads have become so expensive that a player would need to be mad to build on, should he find himself with the resources to do so, which is also unlikely.

Recruiting for the south is much too centralized and needs some dispersal. Tennessee is much too important. It accounts for about a third of all conscripts. Meantime Missouri provides none and Kentucky only one. Missouri, even though occupied by the end of 1861 provided over 50,000 troops. They are represented in the force pool but even taking St Louis provides no additional manpower, though for the Union it is a major source of conscripts, even when it is pro-Confederate.

We should not be turning the CSA into some powerhouse but we do need it to remain strong at least until 1864.

Perhaps we should have a serious discussion about this new balance in the beta forum, with several betas giving their opinion. I can't say for myself if not being able to build Brigs in SW or SE is ahistorical or is (historical) e.g

As for conscripts being weighted too much in a particular state (TN), the design philosophy is that a major part of the conscripts is received nation wide, with the options, so you have to take that into account... On the map, yes perhaps TN is providing too many conscripts compared to others states, but this is minor if you now factor the national options.

About ships costs, we can perhaps slightly reduce the requirements for CS only... Or perhaps you should build iron mills?

Ok Im all for moving this to the beta forum, I think Ol Choktaw has a point, 1.02 was a big step in the right direction, but the game needs some tweaking and fine tuning


Thanks for the support Durk, its appreciated

Stef