Historical accuracy vs. game balance

[Ace1_slith]

I agree with you. To put large locked militia garrisons in US rear area would be nice.

I do not think that restricting militias movement is possible, although out of home penalty can be increased, to lower their movement out of home to 10%.
In any way, giving locked garrisons would be nice. But, I do not think it will be done for next patch, maybe after that if we lobby hard enough.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

In AACW1, in PBEM there were house rules where players agreed to put McClellan in charge out East, and Grant out west. Once, the CSA is toned down, I see no reason why it cannot be done as well.

That's a good rule; some players may not like having hands tied, but that was the political reality.

I think Michael is pursuing the right strategy against me in the game, which is 100% Virginia/Forget everything else. The problem is that's kind of boring. And if it works, which I think it does, it begs the question why bother with the rest of the Civil War?

By keeping Grant out West, it forces you to win the war out West, which is alot more interesting in the end

PS: A corresponding rule may be to require Lee to stay out East, only fair

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Is anyone appointing McClellan to command the largest army now?

I will Fun above all.

Especially as he does get activated by event.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Is anyone appointing McClellan to command the largest army now?

I will Fun above all.

Especially as he does get activated by event.

I only have to wait 11 months now [:)] It's january 1862 and according to Wikipedia McClellan was sacked on november. If the game does not sack it, I will.

Meanwhile this guy should provide me (and Marquo) some big laughs. So no problem on my end. The clown can run the Circus for all I care [:D]

[KamilS]

Judging from contests between similarly skilled opponents and direction of changes I suspect, that after 1.02 USA will be overpowered.


I am merely referring to game balance - too many conclusions are being drawn from games that ended up in '61 or '62 due to difference in skill or experience. This is long struggle and I think, that even now in later years USA is strong enough to achieve success if played well.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus



I will Fun above all.

Especially as he does get activated by event.

I only have to wait 11 months now [:)] It's january 1862 and according to Wikipedia McClellan was sacked on november. If the game does not sack it, I will.

Meanwhile this guy should provide me (and Marquo) some big laughs. So no problem on my end. The clown can run the Circus for all I care [:D]

What will happen first is that the political cost to remove him will drop. Then later, he may be removed by event. (He runs for President.)

[Michael T]

I have played two games now as CSA against Marquo and in both I overan the Union forces in the East without much ado. The removal of the bug (extra CSA conscripts) may not still be enough to prevent this kind of thing as I have an excess of CSA recruits anyhow. I have no shortage of WS as I overan so many Union factories. Money is the only bottleneck.

Restricting Grant the the west may well play in to an aggressive CSA strategy in the East. Leadership is such a key factor in this game. I really love this game. I hope a nice balance can be found. It deserves it.

[Ace1_slith]

WS cost for units is also being increased as well.

[Lecivius]

First off, thank you Pocus for coming here. I appreciate your time.

I don't want to see the South get neutered. Just some bugs cleaned off the windshield [:D] And perhaps a minor tweek to the North. Nothing major. Always better to go in small steps, IMO.

There are several ideas floating around here. Mine would be
(1) Scale up the income level to the North, year by year. This could even be tied to the difficulty slider.
(2) Add another trainer to the North’s generals. The idea that the North loses one is, IMHO, critical. But that is my opinion. Adding another still allows the general build up. And then McClellan can still get retired.

And only one, or the other. Not both. Small steps. Or another of the suggestions mentioned here, as long as it remains minor.

And I hope I did not impugn your honor, Ace1. Not my intention at all, and if I did I apologize. I tried to focus on that one issue, once everyone else did. With regards to blockades, there is something broken. I can duplicate it now to a limited extent. In my example Mobile is the bug. I can make the same thing happen in Charleston. There are a few other threads from other players reporting the same issue. I can also watch as the ‘lock’ icon will come & go turn by turn, where Charleston is locked, then open, then locked again, with no change in forces. I have no idea on if that is visual only. I will have to pay attention to the percentage number next time I play. Wandering generals is hard to duplicate, as one has to have a save when the orders are given, then a save when they pop up. And as a bug, it’s VERY minor. Only happens 2-3 times an entire game.

Anyways, I am glad there is a patch coming out soon. That indicates designer issues in making this a better game. And that, after all, is all we can hope for as game consumers.

[Ace1_slith]

Everything's fine[:)]

Blockade icon not showing up is a bug. It happens when you exit the game completely, and reload it. The distant blockade icon from the forts blockading the port does not show up on reload, but the region is actually blockaded during turn hosting. So it is a graphics issue.

And, by the way trade ports are currently not bringing in enough $. They should bring the same amount of $ as their level. So, there will be money/turn increase for both sides in 1.02.

[JR5555]

Ace1,

Do you know if the patch is going to fix existing games regarding the conscripts issue?

Thanks!

[Ace1_slith]

I do not know what the patch will exactly include. In every turn now each plantation gives you +3-5 CC. After the patch it will not give you any more (I presume, but I am not sure, it is a discussed proposal, I have yet not seen if the designers have implemented it). If let's say 10 turns has already passed, from that point onwards CC production will be decreased, but it will not take away those conscripts that have been already produced.
If you wish to start a new game, I propose that you mod the way I described it in this thread.

[Toro12]

Lecivius, I haven't seen the odd blockade issue, but I'll test it tonight myself. I do know that some water zones change requirements as time moves on, and I originally thought this was WAD. Now I'm wondering???

[von Beanie]

I played ACW1 a lot, and I've played ACW2 against the AI a few times.

Then, I started my first PBEM game of ACW2 a couple of weeks ago. It is now 1862 and I'm facing a southern opponent that is much stronger than me ON EVERY FRONT east of New Mexico (KY included). I wouldn't mind if the CSA is stronger on one front, but this situation is completely unrealistic. I welcome any reasonable situation that tones down the completely unrealistic southern strength early in the war. I never saw anything like the current situation in ACW1, so I would welcome a reasonable solution. I won't need a larger Union army than I can already build if the CSA can't grow as massive as quickly as it does now. The Union is tasked with conquering southern territory starting in 1862--something that appears impossible as the game stands now.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

I do not know what the patch will exactly include. In every turn now each plantation gives you +3-5 CC. After the patch it will not give you any more (I presume, but I am not sure, it is a discussed proposal, I have yet not seen if the designers have implemented it). If let's say 10 turns has already passed, from that point onwards CC production will be decreased, but it will not take away those conscripts that have been already produced.
If you wish to start a new game, I propose that you mod the way I described it in this thread.

Time will tell, but I wonder if that is an overcorrection. In my game vs. Michael, I agree South has too many recruits; plantations are producing 32 per turn. But without plantation, "Base" production will boil down to the Barracks in Richmond (3), plus 11 CSA state capitals (1 each), for a base total of 14 or so. That's not alot. (At least the CSA state capitals are generally not easy to get to, with the exception of Nashville, and Talahassee via sea)

You ran a simulation to show total production, but I bet you didn't move the 3 Union Recruiting Officers into a city (Banks, Burnside, McClernand), which is a standard move for Union player; that adds something like 15 extra recruits a turn.

[Ace1_slith]

I proposed plantation conscripts to be set to 0. After looking at the proposal, the developers have set it to 1. They have increased farmland and barracks conscripts production, so it is completely different than in my test.
So, CSA conscripts have been reduced little less than in my test, and Union conscripts have been boosted a little (no change in my test).
So, after the new patch, we will see what the new balance is[8D].

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

I proposed plantation conscripts to be set to 0. After looking at the proposal, the developers have set it to 1. They have increased farmland and barracks conscripts production, so it is completely different than in my test.
So, CSA conscripts have been reduced little less than in my test, and Union conscripts have been boosted a little (no change in my test).
So, after the new patch, we will see what the new balance is[8D].

Interesting....I haven't counted the number of farmlands around the map. IIRC, there's one in Texas, and Bowling Green has one. The rest must be up north somewhere, not sure how many.

[Toro12]

They're scattered around the South. One, I believe, is in Memphis? Another in Vicksburg? (Trying to recall from work...).

[Michael T]

The current version (1.01), at the start of the game will give the North 33 recruits and if you add the 15 from the recruiter leaders a total of ~51 recruits per turn.
The South ~59

So what will the new patch be changing these numbers too?

[Toro12]

Sounds like, by reducing the plantation input. And, from what Ace has said, adjustment of the code ourselves is possible should we want to increase/decrease that specific Southern input.