FS

[Beriand]

Hello, so it would be a pretty big change, though in line with many comments... could we maybe get at least experimental 1861 campaign in which:
-Confederacy (almost) does not lose Fighting Spirit on objectives, so they can lose basically only by losing capitals, victory cities or players surrendering,
-each current CSA FS objective lose is converted into Union FS gain, with some similar value (currently Union gets +FS from very few objectives, maybe 20% of them),
-Union loses 500 FS each turn, and maybe 1000 from mid 1863? Additional lose of 200-300 with CSA units 2 hexes from Washington. Maybe additional decrease from no Union units in proximity of Nashville...

Thus besides FS loses from grind, Union also has a steady drain, which needs to be replenished by some objective victories? Probably CSA would need to lose a tiny bit of MPPs then, due to probable quality discrepancy. And not yet sure what should be done to FS hits from disbanding forts, but eh.
Bascially just something to make Union to push on land at least a little, not only prepare full naval blockade in 1862 and then move only in 1863? Tricky to achieve, but maybe possible, who knows.

Well obviously we can easily make a mod like this, but would like to get some opinions first

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Some interesting ideas in here for sure!

A few of them are actually very similar to the first version of FS that I tried out very early in development, and as a lot of things in a super early stage of development do, that system had some issues. That's not to say this system would have the same issues, only that if we were to overhaul the FS system, I don't want us falling in the same traps I found two years ago. So I think it is worth bringing those traps into the discussion:

How that system worked was broadly the following:
No Richmond FS bonus.
From 1/1/1863, the Union needed to capture at least one of Fredericksburg, Nashville or Memphis. Little Rock might have been part of that set too (amphibious invasions were effectively impossible in this version, ruling out something like New Orleans). If they don't, they lose a fixed amount of FS each turn. I think 500.
From 1/1/1865, the Union needed to capture at least one of Richmond, Atlanta or Charleston. If they don't, they lose a fixed amount of FS each turn. 1000?

What I found was that, if the penalty on the Union is great enough for the mechanic to be a credible threat to their long term chance of victory, then the Confederate best strategy is simply to make sure those locations don't fall. In order to guarantee this, all they have to do is cluster a huge army around each of those locations (which is quite easy given all those locations save Fredericksburg can spawn units, and Fredericksburg is a turn's walk from Richmond), and then hunker down and weather the Union assaults. For the game to be balanced, the Confederacy has to be allowed to build almost as many units as the Union long term, else the Union can just build a mega stack somewhere, smash through (taking losses 1:1, they will have many units to spare when the Confederates run out) and be assured victory. Catch is, if the game is balanced (and we assume the Union's smaller build advantage is matched by the Confederate ability to deploy units closer to the battlefield), and the war's outcome depends on these focal points, then the Union can't win assuming both sides are committing maximum force to those focal points... and not committing maximum force to those focal points is a stupid move for the Union player because the mechanic, by definition, has to be a credible enough threat to their position that ignoring it means their doom. There's no reason to go after Florida, or New Mexico, or Missouri or anything except those focal points, and that makes for a boring game.

The other thing, and this is true for all SC games and indeed most of the games of this genre, is that success breeds more success, and failure tends to bring more failure. The so-called "snowballing", and this is especially notable in the ACW because there's no foreign powers entering to tip the balance one way or the other at different points in the game (well, excluding the Europeans, but we'll ignore them for now). If I assign, say, Nashville, Chattanooga and Atlanta as objectives, then only Nashville really matters, because taking Nashville will make Chattanooga easier, which in turn makes Atlanta easier again. And as I said above, the existence of say Nashville as an objective makes the best Confederate strategy to simply fortify Nashville to a fare-thee-well.

I got around this really with two things. One, scrap the "objectives" (the five cities for the Minor Victory are only there really to break ties), and two, have the Confederacy become stronger the longer the game goes in a non-industrial manner (this became the Richmond per-turn bonus), but only if the Union is not advancing. The Richmond bonus is 500/turn for the Confederacy, which is equal to about a state and a half's worth of towns and cities' regular FS values. I.e., if the Union occupies less than a state and a half, then the Confederacy is getting stronger each turn in FS (assuming casualties are equal). If the Union occupies more, then the Confederacy is going to start falling apart (this point was reached around early 1863 historically, and if they lose too much more then an MPP doom-spiral is inevitable anyway).
Why I went for "make the Confederacy get FS-stronger" and not "make the Union get FS-weaker" is two reasons. One, if I give the Confederate player a bonus, he's going to feel good, whereas if I give the Union player a penalty, he's going to feel bad (with the other player assumed to feel neutral). It should be obvious that I'd prefer players to be happy. Two, a stronger Confederacy gives the Union player a choice: do I storm in now with whatever forces are available, or build up and hope my stronger force later will be sufficient to overcome a more formidable obstacle. If the Union holds back, the initiative passes to the Confederacy, who then can choose to strike first and attempt to disrupt the build-up, or focus instead on building entrenchments &c. If the Union gets FS-weaker over time, then a lot of strategic options are removed, as the Union must attack, and therefore the Confederacy must defend, as doing anything else leads to certain defeat.

Again, this is all just based off a different (albeit similar) FS mechanic to the one you propose, I just think my experiences with that might be helpful to a discussion here

- BNC

[Beriand]

A few of them are actually very similar to the first version of FS that I tried out very early in development, and as a lot of things in a super early stage of development do, that system had some issues. That's not to say this system would have the same issues, only that if we were to overhaul the FS system, I don't want us falling in the same traps I found two years ago. So I think it is worth bringing those traps into the discussion:

Thank you for answer! Yes I know it is quite complicated matter, and impossible to really judge without tests etc. I obviously did not test it, so you have upper hand from the past Still worth thinking about, I assume.
So the first thing is, about some issues you mentioned, and trying to dodge 'linearity' for Union... so that is why I would try to avoid hard-coded Main Offensive Objectives for Union. There are around 30 FS objectives in Confederacy (could be a couple more along border, dunno). And they all could matter, so a player can pick his path. They can take whatever. But they need to take something, otherwise steady FS drain kills him.
I would probably consider three 'hard' things, as Virginia/Tennessee/Missisipi was presumably three most important theaters:
-Keeping CSA units 3 hexes from Washington. Basically means holding Alexandria. Because retreating to the Potomac line and looking at CSA troops for two years kind of suck. This does not mean that Union offensive into Virginia is necessary - to the contrary, just that one would need to try to block CSA movement, and that Confederacy player has some incentive to attack a little, besides not-so-realistic notion of maybe taking Washington (yeah, sure).
-Keeping Union units near Nashville. Not in the city. Say, in two towns north of it, on the other side of the river? It is not hard for Union. But they would need to do it, and again not just look at CSA for two years. And maybe Confederacy player try to defend.
-Taking either Memphis or New Orleans, to 'inaugrate' Missisipi campaign. Because it was historically important and there is river warfare, so...
And it is not like Union dies if it not perform those three things. But it better try performing most of them earlier than later - not just sit back.

I got around this really with two things. One, scrap the "objectives" (the five cities for the Minor Victory are only there really to break ties), and two, have the Confederacy become stronger the longer the game goes in a non-industrial manner (this became the Richmond per-turn bonus), but only if the Union is not advancing. The Richmond bonus is 500/turn for the Confederacy, which is equal to about a state and a half's worth of towns and cities' regular FS values. I.e., if the Union occupies less than a state and a half, then the Confederacy is getting stronger each turn in FS (assuming casualties are equal). If the Union occupies more, then the Confederacy is going to start falling apart (this point was reached around early 1863 historically, and if they lose too much more then an MPP doom-spiral is inevitable anyway).

I do not think this bonus is important in practice. It keeps CSA above 75% threshold for a long time, and that is basically it. But getting below 75% is no huge deal. It is good bonus, but kind of as with Russians in World at War Objective is not really taking territory. It is destroying enemy army - and then you rapidly get the territory.
Although yeah still, CSA gives up a little to early for my taste, when they usually hold huge interior and 50 units, so that is why I argue abolishing their death-by-FS Player can give up anytime anyway, but if he would like delve deeper into desperate defensive, why close this option... for surrender of AI, to avoid boring final-year slaughter, surely some solution can be found.

Two, a stronger Confederacy gives the Union player a choice: do I storm in now with whatever forces are available, or build up and hope my stronger force later will be sufficient to overcome a more formidable obstacle. If the Union holds back, the initiative passes to the Confederacy, who then can choose to strike first and attempt to disrupt the build-up, or focus instead on building entrenchments &c. If the Union gets FS-weaker over time, then a lot of strategic options are removed, as the Union must attack, and therefore the Confederacy must defend, as doing anything else leads to certain defeat.

But... like... the Union must attack Why would it hold back for two years, politically etc. I have little knowledge about ACW, but it is throwing in the towel as far as public opinion is concerned, no? And as for gameplay, it is immensely boring. Yet, sadly, such holding back is the winning strategy. And on the other side of the same thing, CSA must defend. Unless against much worse player. Why would it attack? If it can smash Maryland, this probably means that game balance is very bad (I feel that most people rejected notion of equally strong Union and CSA?). If they cannot smash Maryland, they can probe for weak points and disrupt build-up, yes, that is nice to do and a player should try things like these. But I would not really consider this to be initiative.

To reiterate, I might be wrong, but for me realistic strategies are: 1861 just first movements; 1862 Union enforces almost full blockade and barely anything else, while CSA try to attack here and there, but no can do; 1863 Union starts going in, with full technology and mobility advantage due to river/sea amphibs, although CSA also by this time has all possible divisions&corps built, so it is not rapid yet; 1864 behold Union new generals smashing its way in all places where there are no series of fortifications, which means most of the places; early 1865, if any, Union finishes the job.
Little reason to deviate from this. Obviously, existence of mostly one 'meta' flow of the game would not be bad in itself, it is just that the first half is passive, then second half is quite desperate.