Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

...it will be quite easy to make changes related to game-balance that do not require additional programming. So, we would very much like to know your suggestions for such changes.
...

Most people discussing allowing the North to control provinces via sea invasion, and many of the other suggestions posted here, seem to have forgotten the point of this thread as quoted from Gil R above (his italics) in the original post. Most of the requests belong in the Wish List thread, not here.

True, and thanks for pointing this out.

It's not too bad, though, since we do also read this thread. My main concern is that there might be a great idea in a thread that receives five responses and then quickly sinks out of sight. The Wish List thread, symbolically pinned to the top part of the forum, will not sink out of sight (though particular ideas might be rejected...).

[Feltan]

I am going to wait for the patch(es) before investing anymore time with this game.

Some parts of the game are really good. It is stable; nice graphics; nice game flow -- it has a lot going for it.

However, it is so imbalanced in favor of the South that I find it unenjoyable. I just played a campaign with Union power at +3 and the South at -2, as the South. No problem. The North never seriously threatened me. The southern diet for buildings, weapons and ships was mightly lean, but the relentess Union suicide attacks at Fredricksburg insured that they had little manpower to do anything else. All I had to do was defend Fredricksburg (and one small Union amphib on the coast), and build a few (very few) buildings. It was easy; not even a challenge.

I'll check back from time-to-time to see if a patch is out, but it isn't worth continued play for me. Good system; good game play, but lousy balance unless you are into some sort of alternate Confederate fantasy universe.

Regards,
Feltan

[rook749]

[/quote]

Didn't the Union land a large army on the Virginia capes by sea? Wasn't there a whole amphibious landing of an Army sized unit?

For Pete's sake, the southern coastline WAS vulnerable.

The only thing that prevented "ahistorical penetration" was supply, and a deliberate decision on the part of the Union to only occupy enclaves.

Regards,
Feltan

[/quote]


Yes the moved the entire AoP on the cape and mached for Richmond, the ANA was railed south to block them. This happened in 1862.

Rook

[rook749]

I've seen a lot of people posting on the balance and historical aspects of the game so I figured I¡¦d throw my two cent's in . Before I start keep in mind that balance and historical accuracy are also dependant on which options the player selects, which to me is one of the best features of the game. I¡¦ve now played five games as the north and one as the south. Without the following options: Richer Economy, Poorer Economy, Randomized Stats, Hidden Stats, Fewer Generals, Faster Sieges, Slower Sieges and Allow CSA Emancipation.

Camps - I don't feel they are horribly broken but do need some work. I don't think they should tied mainly to horses but instead tied to both labor, money and horses. As warm live bodies are needed to refill the ranks ¡V as well as horses for cavalry, artillery and supply trains. Maybe in a 20 Money ¡V 40 Horses ¡V 40 Labor combination. One of the problems the south had through the war was a shortage of men to refill the ranks and the north had was the need to draft or pay a "bounty" to sign up men for the army. As it stands right now battle attrition and disease hurts the North more than the South and this should not be the case at all.

Navy - Ships cost way too much for the north and are two easy for the south to build. Fleets Containers cost way too much, without a fleet container you can't blockage a port and there are a lot of ports to blockage. A) I think that the costs for ships & fleets needs to be adjusted down. B) The north needs to start with more naval building improvements to speed how quickly ships can be built as well as increase their quality. C) Some of the at start Union Ships should have their guns upgraded.

Quick Combat - It seems to me that casualties to me aren't correct they¡¦re either too low or very lopsided in the large battles. I have no idea how to resolve this.

Quality of the CSA/USA Army - At the risk of opening up a very heated debate I think the developers did a good job with the this issue. I do release that it is possible for the a Union player to promote their better generals in 1861 to 4/3 stars but this is also true of the CSA. Lee always seems to be in front of the ANA pretty fast and he didn¡¦t get command in the normal time line until Johnson was wounded. The real advantage the CSA (other then better generals, which they still have) was that from top to bottom their army was more professional (VMI, more West Point Graduates, etc) which is reflected in there better at start container stats. And should also (not sure if this is true or not, with only one game as the CSA) be reflected in the new containers built until the Union has time to build more improvements to build better units.

Generals - The Arrivals dates, at start general ranks and starting location for all the generals needs some work (which I know is something that is being worked on). I also think that the number of 2 Star Generals per academy needs to be adjusted up, personally I hate having a ton of one star generals and a lots of divisons without leaders. In several games I¡¦ve had 11 Academies and I still was short 2 Star Generals for my divisions.

Setup - The Army of the Potomac should start in Maryland in the July 1861 Setup not in Fredericksburg, VA.

Population Modifier Effect - I don't like how this option works at all, I like the idea of an effect that punishes a player for raising too many trooops.

Mansions/Plantations - Plantations work great, but I think the costs of Mansions should be but to between 60 - 80 money. It's very hard to meet governor demands if you can¡¦t keep at least one spot in each state open. Also each state should start with at least one open spot.

Governors - While a pain in my but from time to time work great but can we get some of the dumb requests removed. Like a Shipyard in the middle of the country or the need for 20 brigades in Maine.

European Diplomacy - I'm not a fan of how this system works but as I don't have an idea for better one. Reduce the chance for a shift at each level significantly and if possible allow for a one point shift to the side that wins a major battle. Reduce the number of research points given to the CSA, I've seen 70 - 100 points given turn after turn and its leads to the CSA having a much better naval research program than me in several games.

Blockage Runners - I think that there a little too valuable, I like the way they operate but increase the risk for each level. It would also be nice if the risk goes up as the USA blockades more ports (which will needs some changes to the navy ¡V see above) or have the risk go up each year.

Raiders/Partisan - Love the units, but tone down the amount of supplies destroyed. I¡¦ve used them destroy 30+ supplies twice now before a major battle and its helped win both battles. Going to start a PBEM game with a friend and I think he will be in a major surprise when his army loses a tone of supply right before a major battle.

Sea Invasions - They simply don¡¦t work, without the ability to take a province from the sea regardless if you own an adjacent province you can¡¦t take New Orleans from the sea as the Union did.

Emancipation - Works Great, has wonderful effects for both sides but the Union should only be able to do it when the have at least 4 Victory Points. The CSA should also have some sort of handy cap, maybe less than 4 relations with both England and France?

Rook

[Nick R]

I would only add to what Rook said is to have the option to turn off the automatic 1 vp for the South at the end of the game. It seems very much like a reenactment than a simulation if you just give the points to the South.
 
I have suggested in another thread that National Will be used as a Morale Check for the Nation and use that to determine how long a Nation can endure further pursuit of the war. It has never made any sense to me that a simulation of a war does not have some form of this.
 
I would also suggest that National Will be made up of more than just battles. A State Will check should also be done that would make the Governors and keeping them happy more critical to the outcome of National Will and hence the continued support of the War. For example, a State that has a Governor that is loyal would be happier to press on the fight while one that isn’t may want to hasten the end for political gain. Factors, such as mustering, conscription, etc. would also affect the State's Will. In my opinion, this would really make the player really understand why Lincoln did some of the "appointments" and other decision he did and make for a better simulation and not just a reenactment of the Civil War. Other options could include espionage that affects the other Nation’s Will maybe something like subversion or assassination of the President or that of a Governor. It could also fail and increase the other Nation’s Will.
 
My reasoning is based on my belief that if you are simulating a battle, it’s fairly straight forward. Location is set, etc. with the only variable possibly being the Order of Battle. But when simulating a War numerous variables should now come into play. I have enjoyed the games complexities in having to balance the military needs vs. political needs. It would make it seem much more "real" and not just some artificial contrivance to help the South.

[Thresh]

National Will could be tied into to how well a nation can muster troops.  The better the National will, the easier it is to muster, the lower the National will, the harder it is to muster, and you have to start conscripting.

Thresh

[spruce]

I think that arms dropping should be tweaked ... now the South has easy acces to al sorts of good weapons cause they are dropped after a defensive battle against the Union.
 
My proposal would be that the losing party keeps on losing their weapons - so they go to IW ... but the victor only picks them up in 50% of the case.
 
Just to counterbalance the fact that defending troops have a better chance at winning a battle - and they'll pick up dropped weapons. So to avoid the defending guys (CSA) grows too fast in strength.
 
And also to lower the average arms quality a little - in my previous game all confederate troops where on crack weapons after a very short period of time ...

[spruce]

I find this really a game breaker. In my Union game - in my third turn or so (jan 1862) - Kentucky joins CSA - ok for me ... let them do.
 
But the next turn the CSA is emancipating its slaves and gets all nice of diplo bonuses. I find myself facing the CSA - being loved by both France, UK and European nations.
 
I choose to support fully diplomacy on UK and France. 2 turns later - France declares war on the Union - before the summer of 1862 !
 
Isn't that too easy for the CSA to emancipate ? I have to say not one "big" battle was even fought - and a few turns later Europe is intervening already ?
 
I say it's a game breaker ... having the CSA emancipate so soon ... same problem the other way around - the Union is also too fas to emancipate.

[Mike Scholl]

Personally, I think "CSA Emancipation" is a total pipedream. Play with it OFF. You may still get "hosed" by the system in the "European Bribery" screen..., but at least you can try to do something about that.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

As I mentioned before, I prefer to turn off CSA Emancipation and European Bribery.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

As I mentioned before, I prefer to turn off CSA Emancipation and European Bribery.

That would certainly solve the problem. But while "CSA Emancipation" was an historical non-starter, at least the threat of European Intervention was taken seriously by both sides. So while the system for representing it in the game is poor, a player wanting an historical game might want to leave it on for lack of anything better.

[spruce]

yes turning it of, would help - but I hope they'll tweak that feature cause I hold nothing against it  - but seems to behave in a weird way to use it right now ...

[Roger Neilson II]

Currently playing with it off as its too big an influence I feel at present, but would not like to lose the 'political' aspect of it. The 'ooops suddenly there's thousands of Brit troops swarming in from Canada and the Royal Navy appear flying the Confederate flag' is a nonsense though.

Yes its happened to me!

Surely a points addition to the Confederate side may be a better way of reflecting this aspect?

Roger

[Paper Tiger]

Perhaps it would be better to just include the existing benefits without the troops and ships, kind of like the "other Europeans" across the board, maybe a boost to manpower at the extreme or the ability to purchase naval units and have them built, armed and manned in europe.
Would be good to have commerce raiders in the game as well.

[spruce]

the problem is not the fact that the europeans intervene - the problem is that the emancipation by both sides is a little "early" ... there should be some tough restricitons to use this button ... otherwise it will screw up most of the games as the AI is doing it always in 1862 ...

AI CSA emancipated in febr. 1862
AI USA emancipated in may 1862

the war had merely started and the Europeans were already intervening due to this emancipation thingy.

to make things worse - the CSA starts with a diplo bonus already with the Europeans, if they emancipate so early - the Europeans will intervene.

[Berkut]

Frankly, I think the idea that the Europeans would actually intervene in the war (as opposed to simply recognizing the South) is a bit far fetched. The brits were not about to send troops to the US to fight on the side of the South. The *best* the south could hope for would be recognition, pressure to lift the blockade, and additional material assistance.

The current system where the European powers just GIVE stuff to the South? [:D]

Uhhh, no. They made money supplying both sides, they sure as hell were not giving anything away.

[spruce]

perhaps the Europeans were considering breaking the blockade and sending troops to be stationed in Virginia ? Pure hypothetical speaking off course ... first they would break the blockade i think - so sending ships the first turns would seem more logical ...

[Roger Neilson II]

Ok, so we are into a minor fantasy there I think...... I could just about live with that. But to have them warp speed troops and ships in bulk across the Atlantic the moment the points change?

Sorry, that's not the historical game I want to play.

The most that might have been achieved was an opening up of trade and an improvement in the Southern economy..... but there are commentators (can't remember who) who say that within a short space of the start of the blockade Britain had realised that reliance on Southern cotton was a mistake anyway and made other arrangements.

Why should Britain bother? Can't speak for France as their foreign policy has always been a mystery to everyone including themselves! Why align with an at best minor power with a limited economy and a highly questionable moral stance on slavery? (Pleeese no-one mention Opium by the way and entirely different and beneficial commodity to be encouraged through war and foreign intervention)

Roger

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Frankly, I think the idea that the Europeans would actually intervene in the war (as opposed to simply recognizing the South) is a bit far fetched. The brits were not about to send troops to the US to fight on the side of the South. The *best* the south could hope for would be recognition, pressure to lift the blockade, and additional material assistance. The current system where the European powers just GIVE stuff to the South? [:D] Uhhh, no. They made money supplying both sides, they sure as hell were not giving anything away.

Exactly... Glad to see someone else out here who "get's it". The only way Europeans were going to get "involved" was if the issue had already been decided in the South's favor. Basically, "you can have all the assistance you need----as soon as you can prove you don't need any assistance at all". If that sounds like a conversation you've had with your banker, you are "on the money".

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

That would certainly solve the problem. But while "CSA Emancipation" was an historical non-starter, at least the threat of European Intervention was taken seriously by both sides. So while the system for representing it in the game is poor, a player wanting an historical game might want to leave it on for lack of anything better.

I’ve made some comments on the emancipation issues in an earlier post so I don’t want to go into to much detail as to my reasons but I don’t’ feel either side should be able to use emancipation unless they have at least 4 VPs and I’ll personally always play with the CSA emancipation option off.

I was thinking about the way European intervention works, I think the threat needs to be there – but right now it’s far too easy for the Europeans to show up in force. I think the European bribery (don’t know whom came up with the term but I love it) should be dropped and instead there should be a one point shift towards the CSA/Union every time either a city falls or one side wins a major battle. For example if the CSA wins a major battle one of the “neutral” points shifts towards them, when the USA takes a city a “neutral” point shifts towards them. If there are no “neutral” points then the side that lost the city/battle has one of their points shifted towards “neutral”. I think this should allow both the USA and CSA at very start to gain points to buy weapons from overseas and for the CSA to receive technology/recourses but as time goes by the Union can cut off those items or the CSA (if they do really well) can bring in the Europeans.

Rook