Historical accuracy vs. game balance

[Ace1_slith]

C'mon, it's not that big. Union is still slightly stronger in the long run, not just historically stronger. After it gets fixed, it will be much stronger as it is supposed to be. Union does receive more conscripts via volunteers and mobilization, it just gets less conscripts via recruiting center structures.

[Michael T]

No I disagree. The CSA have a big advantage early on. And in order to try and keep up and/or get some numerical advantage the Union must burn a ton of VP/money on recruitment options. Which puts them way behind in the VP race. The game as it stands now is for the CSA player to lose. I have enough gaming experience behind me to know a lopsided contest when I see one. And this is one of the worst.

My game where I am CSA against Marquo (who is no mug) is a walkover. The only reason I survive in my Union game is that Q-Ball basically went on the defence from day one.

But this is besides the point. The main thing is that it gets addressed as the system on the whole is very good [:)]

[veji1]

Have to go with Michael T here : It is a pretty big oversight because one feels in 62 like he is playing "ACW arcade".

[Pocus]

We are seriously considering a change here indeed. Patch 1.02 is almost ready internally, need to send it to Matrix QA now.

[TulliusDetritus]

What I would like to know is if the Union can come back from the dead. I can live with some sort of ahistorical Confederate offensives. If anything, to remain flexible and allow the South players to have some fun.

Is there any empirical data? I mean chez AGEOD forum. The hardcore veterans seem to be there. What are they saying?

Ace seems to be one of them. He keeps saying the Union will have the upper hand (and he concedes the Confederates are MORE strong the first year at least).

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Pocus

We are seriously considering a change here indeed. Patch 1.02 is almost ready internally, need to send it to Matrix QA now.

Cool, thanks Pocus.

[Ace1_slith]

Just to calm you folks down. I did a test with a change designers maybe incorporate in the next patch. Here are screenshots:

CSA resources after first year

[Ace1_slith]

USA recources Dec,61

[Ace1_slith]

CSA recources Dec 62

[Ace1_slith]

USA resources Dec 62

[Ace1_slith]

From 62 onwards, it is basiclly a spiral with CSA every year receiving less than half recruits from US. So, this is a quick reaction from them[:)]

Note also how US morale rose to 106 via events even with Manassas event which triggered in the first year. At the same time CSA morale did not venture far beyond initial 110. So everything is historical there as well.

So, in my opinion no one can say now that the game unhistorically favors CSA side.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

What I would like to know is if the Union can come back from the dead. I can live with some sort of ahistorical Confederate offensives. If anything, to remain flexible and allow the South players to have some fun.

Is there any empirical data? I mean chez AGEOD forum. The hardcore veterans seem to be there. What are they saying?

Ace seems to be one of them. He keeps saying the Union will have the upper hand (and he concedes the Confederates are MORE strong the first year at least).

This is less ACW specific and more generic to AGE games. But one very strong feature is it is common to come back from the death, or lose from a dominant position. I lost a Rise of Prussia game (with Prussia) having been at the gates of Vienna earlier) and won a game of Revolution under Siege despite losing Petrograd and being boxed in around Moscow.

Some of this is down to events kicking in (ie in the RoP game I couldn't afford to keep the Prussian army at Wien with France and Russia in the war) and some is down to game mechanics.

Ace has made the point of how the US side gradually pulls itself back.

Now it may well be that this iteration of ACW2 is too one-sided at the start, but unlike most wargames I've played, the AGE engine does allow for massive reversal of fortunes.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

From 62 onwards, it is basiclly a spiral with CSA every year receiving less than half recruits from US. So, this is a quick reaction from them[:)]

Note also how US morale rose to 106 via events even with Manassas event which triggered in the first year. At the same time CSA morale did not venture far beyond initial 110. So everything is historical there as well.

So, in my opinion no one can say now that the game unhistorically favors CSA side.

The question remains. How does one stop the Gray Tide in 1861?

[Ace1_slith]

Did you compare the numbers. After next patch CSA will have 30.000 men less in 61 than now. I would not call it Gray Tide at all.

US will now receive about 15.000 more new troops in 61 than the CSA receives.

In 62, it will receive additional 130.000 more troops than CSA. I did not test the 63, but the difference can only rise.

So if the CSA does not grab some substantional victories with equal or smaller force in 61, they are about doomed.

[KamilS]

Well, it looks to me, that after this modifications south will not survive past '64 and as far as I remember victory conditions it wont constitute even chance of winning game.

[Michael T]

Maybe the changes go too far. I guess we shall see. Good thing is they accept the problem exists. What I don't get is why these things are not picked up in play testing.

[Ace1_slith]

Play testing prior to release is primary to quell bugs. And when beta veterans played against AI, believe me, nobody was defeated as Union.

About the proposed 1.02. changes. It takes about 30.000 men from the CSA first year and 50.000 every next year.

So if we look at the current setting. With 80.000 more men in 2 years, in the current build everybody complained about, at the end of 62 US could muster 145-80 = 65.000 more men. Of course, for that to happen, he must not be stamped at the beggining, he must be able to proclaim emancipation, he must keep his morale in 80-100 range.

You see where I am getting at. I was saying even with patch 1.01, Union is stronger than CSA. It is just not historically stronger. And if Union player makes a few early mistakes, it is hard to him to recover. The game as it is now is more or less evenly matched with CSA having early advantage which, if he does not use well, quickly melts in 63.

So, everyone must ask himself, do I want historic game or balanced game. The AGEod has always opted for historic and I like them for that.

[Michael T]

You can have an historical game. Victory conditions just need to be adjusted accordingly.

[mmarquo]

Ace,

What are relative power percentages from the objectives screen?

Marquo

[Emx77]

Good luck with trying to determine how end score is calculated in games based on AGE engine. [:)]

For example, in this thread, Pocus explained where end score comes from in AJE (it is another game but on same engine). It is beyond me why exact score is not presented during play time but is only (re)calculated at the end of scenario. Sometimes, even today, I have hard time figuring out victory determination criteria in AJE (see last post in mentioned thread).