Historical accuracy vs. game balance

[Ace1_slith]

Jim, I have to agree with MT on this one. Here is the screenshot from my game in Nov 61. Look at the number of men US has in this '61 battle.

[Jim D Burns]

By Jan 1 1862 the two armies had these numbers of men under arms:

USA - 527,204

CSA – 258,680

So I see no problem with a 100,000 strong Union Army at this stage in the war. The problem I do see is the fact it’s mobile and players are allowed to use it as they see fit. I still say give the two sides their historical numbers, but fix half of the Union strength in rear area capitals and strategic bases.

If you try and fix the balance issues by just tweaking income levels you will be forced to neuter the Union to keep the game balanced. And if you do that you are not playing an historical wargame about the civil war any longer.

If you look at strength numbers listed on table 9 in the charts listed at the link from my first post, you’ll see the Union army only grew in size by another 100k-120k beyond the January 62 level (though it had a massive growth spurt of about 400k between March 65 – May 65). So once it had its huge initial growth in 1861, future growth was relatively slow for the rest of the war.

The same is true for the CSA with only about 50k more men than its Jan figures reported at its peak size.

So getting the initial army growth right and then toning down income to levels that allow your standing army to then be maintained with little future growth beyond that would be a good fix. But again you need to curtail the Unions ability to use its strength offensively until mid to late 63. Fixing units on map is the only thing I can think of that would make that happen.

A game engine change that restricted inactive leaders and leaderless troops from entering enemy territory may also be a possible fix, but I don’t know if that is a possibility.

Jim

Edit:

Here’s another idea, how about adding a feature to the game that fixes any new Union land unit builds for one year. So once a brigade is done training it is fixed in place for 24 turns. This give players the ability to defend themselves by building up historically accurate large forces where needed, but there is a one year lag time before you can use your new troops offensively.

You could then make a few brigade types immune from the rule so some units can be built for your mobile armies and play testing would decide how many brigades would be exempt.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


So I see no problem with a 100,000 strong Union Army at this stage in the war. The problem I do see is the fact it’s mobile and players are allowed to use it as they see fit. I still say give the two sides their historical numbers, but fix half of the Union strength in rear area capitals and strategic bases.

Jim

Are you going to fix the CSA the same way? They had rear area capitals and strategic bases also.

Not much point in using historical numbers for both sides if you're going to artificially tie the hands of one and not the other.

[Jim D Burns]

I was only thinking about restricting about half the Union strength until it unlocks in 63. Leave them enough to defend and do some attacking but don't let them use the full force of the army until 63 as was historical.

The problem with giving the USA its historical 2-1 strength advantage is players will not be timid and inept like the historical Union generals were. You need to somehow simulate the command issues the Union faced historically during the war and the current penalties applied to leaders who are not activated are not severe enough to dissuade players from using inactive forces offensively. Usually sheer weight of numbers is enough to overcome the inactive status penalty.

Personally I think an inactive or leaderless force should just be prohibited from entering a region that has less than 51% friendly military control. That change alone coupled with an across the board drop in Union strategic ratings of -2 in 1861 then -1 in 1862 would probably suffice to recreate historical command issues faced by the Union sufficiently enough to make taking out the south too early in game a reality. 1863 would see all leaders back to zero strategic rating penalties.

Jim

[Q-Ball]

I think it's too soon to judge on balance; I think it may be a bit of an overcorrection, but I want to see more evidence first.

I can tell you in my game vs. Gunnulf, it's May 1862, and I just counted 250,000 Union troops in the field. This count excludes fixed units, and is only mobile units. I've asked Gunnulf to count the same, but he should have somewhere around 200,000 at this point. In my game vs. Michael I had 215K or so Rebs in the field at a similar stage.

Maybe I am doing something wrong on my builds; I have built 6-8 total Ironclads, expanded Railways, and made sure to buy artillery, but I have also paid $1.50 twice for recruits, and hit every Treasury option, plus any Regional card that pays $$$$$. I have 120,000 troops in Virginia, but 130,000 elsewhere of course

I think one problem is if you go all-in in Virginia, it can skew results for either side.

I have yet to see anyone win a game with a strategy involving anything other than a 100% focus on Washington or Richmond. I also think it's tough to draw any conclusions from Michael or Ace's game because they are crack players. Seems like Michael did quite fine vs. Marquo as CSA, so hard to see how we can draw conclusions on play balance until we know the PLAYERS are balanced.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Jim, I have to agree with MT on this one. Here is the screenshot from my game in Nov 61. Look at the number of men US has in this '61 battle.

Well, at least the AI wasted this huge army on Butler. So there's that type of "balance"....

[Ace1_slith]

Actually, I wasted this huge army on Butler. There were 2 armies converging on Richmond, one led by Butler, and one by McDowell. Butler has higher seniority. Lee was outside Richmond, with about 25.000 men. When he spotted this Army, he retreated South.
The point is, with 80% of my builds going to Eastern armies, I can create a huge Union Army half year too early. McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign had about these numbers.

Jim, about those figures (500.000 men in the Union). How much of those men were support troops? Union had much higher ratio of support troops/combat troops than CSA.

About all in Virginia strategy. It was a historic strategy for both sides. They pumped in at least 70% of their resources in that theater.

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Just upgraded to the new patch and am not too far into the game yet (August), but like what I am seeing. Before jumping to conclusions about the Union being too strong, players should try playing with the activation slider all the way to the right. I’ve been using it and I can tell you Union command issues become glaringly obvious with this setting. Making deep attacks into territory not adjacent to good supply lines is very risky should your army go inactive and become stuck behind enemy lines. Try it out it’s a whole new game.

Jim

I agree with this and I would add my classic pet peeve : hidden activation status. with painful activation sliders + hidden activation status, the Unions player is stuck with his average leaders and can't game the system by transfering forces to the known active leader.

The issue for the Union was never really numbers it was : training of the army which until middish 62 was still a rabble, and then getting numbers to bear through better strategy and leadership.

Give the Union highish numbers but the proper leadership nightmare, and you get a game that will feel quite historical.

[Ol Choctaw]

Ace is playing as the Union in that game. That is his Union army vs. another player.

Don’t just look at the troop numbers. Look at the artillery too.

The balance changes have all favored the Union. It is not so much the conscript numbers that have made the difference.

Upping the costs in War Supply and the blockading of Richmond have had the most serious impacts. Money is the most serious hurtle once the CSA builds a couple of steel mills.

Also the fact that were Runners can be built has changed. A big chunk of those can only be built in the Virginia Ports, which are useless and all the others can only be built in the Deep South, with leaves out Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas.

[Michael T]

In my game as Union against Kamil I am putting the squeeze on in the East and its only Dec 61. He has 3 stacks around 1000 each, I have 5 of around a 1000 each. The West is fairly even. I am also building an awesome fleet.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: veji1
I agree with this and I would add my classic pet peeve : hidden activation status. with painful activation sliders + hidden activation status, the Unions player is stuck with his average leaders and can't game the system by transfering forces to the known active leader.

In my game with the activation slider option all the way to the right, units under a commander that fails activation and gets locked (non-activated leaders aren’t always locked but often are) become locked as well, so it does no good to transfer them.

I will also say I am playing the AI on max difficulty level and he is attacking me and I’m barley holding on. I am not ahead of him in strength at all. I guess the AI gets lots of help on that level. Also I’d have to strip most of the map in Oct 61 to field such a huge Union army as seen in the shot above.

Jim

[Queeg]

QUESTION: Is any of this moddable? It would be nice to be able to tweak some of these issues ourselves. Certainly would save the developers a load of time.

[Ace1_slith]

You can mode structures outputs. It will affect balances. I did not try, but you could in theory even add structures by an event.

[rsallen64]

Wouldn't stripping every other theatre to build a really huge army to focus on ONE theatre ignore the political reality both of the national leaders had to face during the war? If recruiting was done by state, what governors would be willing to sit back throughout the war to let Lincoln or Davis allow their generals to shift all the troops outside of their states to other regions thereby leaving their constituents vulnerable and exposed to an enemy thrust? In the game we can do this because we don't have to face elections or other purely political realities, but it's not realistic historically.

[Aurelian]

The North really didn't have that problem. The militia, if they were not drafted into federal service, I suppose the governor of the state could raise a stink. But not with the three year volunteers or the draftees.

AFAIK, and I could be wrong, the South didn't really have that problem either. Though people like Zeb Vance could and did keep things like food and uniforms etc from all but the North Carolina units.

All that aside though, if I play someone who does that, all in at one area, it'll be a real short game.

Don't play people known to do that, and it will stop.

[Q-Ball]

Gunnulf and I did a quick headcount. I have 250,000 troops, and he has 203,000. That smells about right to me for mid-1862. This is a headcount that excludes garrison troops.

Both of us have bought recruits, and punched all the treasure options. We've both played draft and requisition cards. He has done partial mobilizations, I have not.

I've built a few ironclads, and one industrial build, and I've expanded rail cap alot, but otherwise I've been building infantry and artillery

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Gunnulf and I did a quick headcount. I have 250,000 troops, and he has 203,000. That smells about right to me for mid-1862. This is a headcount that excludes garrison troops.

Both of us have bought recruits, and punched all the treasure options. We've both played draft and requisition cards. He has done partial mobilizations, I have not.

I've built a few ironclads, and one industrial build, and I've expanded rail cap alot, but otherwise I've been building infantry and artillery

Sounds goodish. Let's see how it unfolds but a good balance might have been struck.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Wouldn't stripping every other theatre to build a really huge army to focus on ONE theatre ignore the political reality both of the national leaders had to face during the war?

I think Lincoln and Davis faced political realities that prevented either of them from pursuing a one-front strategy. For one, neither could afford to ignore the border states, especially Lincoln. It wasn't at all clear at the outset how hard the North was prepared to fight to restore the Union. If Missouri and Kentucky has seceded early on, Maryland might have followed, making Washington untenable. And from Davis' perspective, he couldn't very well forge a new nation if he let three quarters of it fall to the North without a fight.

[Ace1_slith]

I think noone was speaking of going for Richmond and letting the rebs roam through Illinois. But investing in Virginia while keeping a defensive line in the West is viable strategy for me.

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

I think noone was speaking of going for Richmond and letting the rebs roam through Illinois. But investing in Virginia while keeping a defensive line in the West is viable strategy for me.

One would have to check it, but yeah I can imagine a Union player just defending St Louis, the north of the Ohio river and screening Kentucky and just pouring all the men and best generals in Virginia to just overland march himself to Richmond 2 years earlier than Grant. worth playtesting.