Game Balance & Historical Accuracy

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Does this play balance at the expense of historical accuracy effect whether the game is a good one? Well yes if you were expecting a historical simulation, but as a game, I have to say I enjoy playing it. Just wish it were really about the Civil War and the advantages and disadvantages each side had.

I'm happy to say that for once I completely agree with you. Although it's not necessary to destroy historical accuracy to get play balance. You could make a historically accurate game with adjustable handicaps for each side (which this game has anyway), and let the players handicap one side or the other when and if they want to.

The big disappointment in the approach they took is that they didn't go with an historically accurate "base game" from which you could add in modifiers/advantages to suit your needs and desires. It's always easier to start from "dead-on correct" when making adjustments. Maybe they thought it wouldn't sell.

[chris0827]

The south's economy isn't too strong it's just that the north's economy is too weak. The south's navy is too strong. The south should have no navy at start except blockade runners. The North's navy is also too weak.

[jchastain]

Just got home and must say I enjoyed reading the replies here and am impressed at how civil the discussions have remained.  Thanks to everyone for discussing this in a rationale manner.
 
As suspected, I think many are still experimenting with the game and are not yet ready to make concrete suggestions.  One that came through on a couple of posts is the initial Naval balance.  Eric has already suggested he will remove the Southern ironclad.  I wonder if anyone has look at the rest of the Navy to determine if that would address the issue entirely.  I believe the ship counts in the game are roughly historical but if anyone believes otherwise feel free to mention it.
 
To the "aggressiveness pool" suggestion, the game does begin to award one victory point to the South each turn beginning in (I think) 1864, which seems to be roughly the same concept.  If the North doesn't take the proper steps to win, they will lose through their inaction as the calendar is not on their side.  To the blockade running suggestions, I am still thinking they might require more work than we are likely to see in a patch, but I applaud your effort.  Who knows... if future wars to be covered by this engine had a lot of blockades, they might consider some of these ideas.
 
As also mentioned a couple of times, we likely will see a set of modified data files that attempt to be more historically accurate.  For any interested in such a project, I might suggest a new thread in the MODS subsection where you might coordinate research, begin collecting modified files, and get feedback from folks willing to test the impact of your mods. 
 
Did I miss any additional suggestions for specific changes?
 
Again, thanks to everyone for keeping this a rationale conversation.  As suspected initially, this discussion might have been a bit premature but we have had a few ideas emerge.

[kentul]

one of the problems that i see as far as severly limiting offenisve ops is how long the seiges take. and also, just for to let you know, not all cities were fortified to the extent that they are in fof. but i have a question for yall. if you occupy an enemy territory, but dont start a seige, just how long will the garrision hold out? will they eventually starve to death or wil their food stores last forever? why are they casualites for sieges so enormous? that is very a-historical and not even based in reality.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: kentul

one of the problems that i see as far as severly limiting offenisve ops is how long the seiges take. and also, just for to let you know, not all cities were fortified to the extent that they are in fof. but i have a question for yall. if you occupy an enemy territory, but dont start a seige, just how long will the garrision hold out? will they eventually starve to death or wil their food stores last forever? why are they casualites for sieges so enormous? that is very a-historical and not even based in reality.

Without a siege, it is assumed you are in the same province but not surrounding or cutting off access to the city and therefore it will never starve. The siege is what indicates you are trying to cut them off and encirclement is a siege option.

Also, if you do not like the pace of sieges, faster or slower sieges is an option.

[kentul]

one more question. how and what is the process for building a fort in a territory? several times i have selected the engineering option to build a fort with a div or a corps, built no fort ever appears. am i doing something wrong?

[freeboy]

I seem to poor a lot of money into the Three pools in Europe playing at the basic level, Sargent?.. and even with wmancipation they are pooring liberal amount sof aid.. what gives? do I need to blockade every port?

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I seem to poor a lot of money into the Three pools in Europe playing at the basic level, Sargent?.. and even with wmancipation they are pooring liberal amount sof aid.. what gives? do I need to blockade every port?

That's what the union did. They either captured or blockaded every port.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: kentul

one of the problems that i see as far as severly limiting offenisve ops is how long the seiges take. and also, just for to let you know, not all cities were fortified to the extent that they are in fof. but i have a question for yall. if you occupy an enemy territory, but dont start a seige, just how long will the garrision hold out? will they eventually starve to death or wil their food stores last forever? why are they casualites for sieges so enormous? that is very a-historical and not even based in reality.

Kentul, two things. First, if sieges take too long for your taste, use the "faster sieges" option. And if you want them to go even faster, choose the "attack fort" option in the siegeworks (instead of encirclement, subterfuge, or one of the other options) and you'll get to fight a battle for a fort. Second, you are right that not all cities were as fortified as we have them, but that's because not all cities were in danger of attack. Had a Union city sensed itself in danger of an attack it would have quickly beefed up its defenses, as Pittsburgh began to do when its citizens thought that Lee was heading their way shortly before Gettysburg. So, it's quite realistic for an army to spend one or two weeks marching on an enemy city, only to find it heavily fortified upon arriving there.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: kentul

one more question. how and what is the process for building a fort in a territory? several times i have selected the engineering option to build a fort with a div or a corps, built no fort ever appears. am i doing something wrong?

Do you have enough money/iron/labor when you do that? If not, it won't work.

[kentul]

thanks gil, that was the problem.

[Queeg]

Based on my play so far, I'm pretty happy with the current balance. I would like to see the battle results (whether march attrition or not) tweaked a bit to reduce the number of lopsided battles. One of the most distinctive characteristics of the ACW was that victories were often as bloody as defeats and the victor often could not follow up a victory because its own losses were so great. In fact, that may well have been the rule rather than the exception. If one play balance concern is to prevent the Union from steamrolling the South, then making victory more costly might help.

As for historical accuracy in general, the biggest problem in an ACW game is that it is difficult to model historical disparities in national will when the player has the benefit of hindsight and the fortitude that comes from losing cyber-soldiers instead of real ones. For most (if not all) of the war, the North lacked the same level of national will that fortified the South. How do you model that accurately when the player shares no such ambivalence? When the player is perfectly willing to fight a remorseless war of attrition right from the start? Perhaps you could model national will in terms of limits on the availability of resources - much as the current Governors feature does - but the Union player would still feel artificially handicapped.

[Johnus]

Frankly gentlemen, after just a few days, and the complication involved in this game, how can anyone intelligently critique it for being ahistorical ?? I deleted the southern ironclads as per Gil R's instructions. I don't like the casualty figures, unless I am misreading them. Other that that, however, it is way too early for me to critique the game on the basis of history.

In spite of all its "advantages," the North took years to conquer the South. Also, the fact that it is difficult and time consuming to build up an efficient army of invasion, or defense for that matter, is very historical. Is the North insufficiently empowered with respect to amphibious invasion capability ?? I can't tell, I haven't got that far into a game, although I have started a few. How many players have gotten that far with a good working knowledge of the game ??

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
I would say the causality numbers need to be tweaked a bit so that you don’t see 15,000 for one side and 3,000 for another.

Cold Harbor, 1864

Union casualties: ~13,500

Confederate casualties: ~2,500

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The south's economy isn't too strong it's just that the north's economy is too weak. The south's navy is too strong. The south should have no navy at start except blockade runners. The North's navy is also too weak.

And the Union's leaders are ridiculously overrated. With any generalship better than utterly pathetic the Union would have won the war by 1863, but if the Union had generals as good as this game makes them then the war would have ended long before then.

On top of that, the general's order of battle for the game is wacky. I have Galusha Pennypacker in my current game as a three-star Union general in late 1861. The only problem with this situation is that he was born in 1844, and thus would have been 17 in 1861. Admittedly, Pennypacker was the youngest man ever to hold the rank of general in the United States Army, but this is still pretty silly.

On the plus side, my Civil War general ancestor is both in the game and has his name spelled correctly...

[Gil R.]

Steely Glint,

If you're referring to ratings of Union 25-percenters and 100-percenters, those were determined in the generals' ratings sub-forum with input from numerous visitors to the site; if you refer to the 9-percenters who make up the bulk of generals for both sides, those were determined randomly but will be gradually made more accurate as the biographies project continues.

Also, as noted in that sub-forum, it is easy to modify the generals spreadsheet so as to change generals' ratings to one's liking. In fact, I think I'll post something about this in the mods sub-forum.

I'm curious -- who is your ACW ancestor? Pennypacker is an ancestor of the wife of none other than Matrix's own Erik Rutins (which may be way we get him into the game sooner).

[Steely Glint]

My ancestor? I'll PM you a clue, but he is no one to be particularly proud of.

The Union had a bigger and better economy, better armaments, better logistics, more troops, and a far better railroad system. Despite this they could not manage to win the war until 1865, and the war could very well have ended in a draw. How could this have happened?

Leadership.

The South's leadership advantage over the North was immense. Whether it was Lee et al at the army level (leaving the abominable Braxton Bragg out of this), Jackson et al at the corps level, Mahone et al at the division level, or Forrest et al with the cavalry, the superb leadership of the South consistently enabled outnumbered, outarmed, and outsupplied men to not only hold their own against vastly superior forces time after time, but to defeat them over and over again. Until the advent of Grant, whose strengths lay in his refusal to quit and his willingness both to take risks and to engage in a war of attrition on a shocking scale, the Union never had a prayer.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

My ancestor? I'll PM you a clue, but he is no one to be particularly proud of.

The Union had a bigger and better economy, better armaments, better logistics, more troops, and a far better railroad system. Despite this they could not manage to win the war until 1865, and the war could very well have ended in a draw. How could this have happened?

Leadership.

The South's leadership advantage over the North was immense. Whether it was Lee et al at the army level (leaving the abominable Braxton Bragg out of this), Jackson et al at the corps level, Mahone et al at the division level, or Forrest et al with the cavalry, the superb leadership of the South consistently enabled outnumbered, outarmed, and outsupplied men to not only hold their own against vastly superior forces time after time, but to defeat them over and over again. Until the advent of Grant, whose strengths lay in his refusal to quit and his willingness both to take risks and to engage in a war of attrition on a shocking scale, the Union never had a prayer.

You overstate the south's advantage in leadership. Only in Virginia did the south have a significant edge in quality leaders. In the west the Union generals were at least the equal of their southern opponents.

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: chris0827
You overstate the south's advantage in leadership. Only in Virginia did the south have a significant edge in quality leaders. In the west the Union generals were at least the equal of their southern opponents.

Nonsense. Until Grant (and Sherman) showed up in the West the Union forces there were run by the usual collection of clowns. The only Union victories gathered there were the results of brute force and massive ignorance. Which is not to say that there weren't some clowns in gray, too...but they were the exceptions and not the rule.

And no Union general in the West (or anywhere else) could hold a candle to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Bryce's Crossroads will still be being taught in military academies when they are training officers for the Space Marines.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint
Bryce's Crossroads will still be being taught in military academies when they are training officers for the Space Marines.

Second only to Captain Garth's achievements at Axanar. If I am not mistaken, I believe those lessons come immediate before the Kobayashi Maru scenario in the curriculum. [;)]