Digging around for a new game

[Blackadar1]

Until some of the play balance issues are fixed, I'd have to recommend folks to stay clear.  I really regret spending my hard-earned $70 (the price of the hardcopy game) on this one.  

[Gil R.]

What play balance issues are these? I know of nothing that seriously impairs gameplay.

[Blackadar1]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

What play balance issues are these? I know of nothing that seriously impairs gameplay.

tm.asp?m=1487177

tm.asp?m=1486853



Overly large Confederate armies seriously impairs gameplay. Unless you play as the South, of course.

[Gil R.]

Oh, that issue. As you know, we're internally testing some tweaks that would prevent the CSA AI from getting unusually large armies, and hope to produce a patch soon to take care of this.

I should add that the game was in public beta-testing for two months and no one ever pointed out the problem, so while a few players do exhibit understandable concern over this, it does not appear to be a game-breaker for the majority of players -- otherwise the complaint would have come up earlier and been repeated far more often.

[Drex]

You can beat larger AI armies and conversely you can get beaten by smaller AI armies. It depends on how those armies are built. For my own part, I prefer an opponent who is difficult to beat as it keeps me coming back to the game.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Blackadar1

Overly large Confederate armies seriously impairs gameplay. Unless you play as the South, of course.

Overly large Confederate armies? The Union should be able to outnumber CSA troops levels by 2 to 1 or more by late 62/early 63 using volunteer musters and conscription properly. Have you tried using those tools to keep up with and exceed the inevitable early war muster on the CSA side?

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Oh, that issue. As you know, we're internally testing some tweaks that would prevent the CSA AI from getting unusually large armies, and hope to produce a patch soon to take care of this.

The number of units they field is fine, the only thing that might be a bit off is the way the AI builds massive amounts of camps instead of spending money in diverse areas the way a human player does. That makes it a bit goofy since all their units tend to be at 100% strength.

What combination of tweaks are you guys looking at? Ive always thought a bit more population cost for reinforcement would be nice, putting in a reinforcement cap based on population and/or increasing the costs of Camps above a certain number, along with whatever you have to change to alter the behavior of the AI which currently seems to go crazy with the camp construction to the exclusion of all else.

ORIGINAL: rroberson

SO is it worth the 70 plus dollars (UPS) that I would have to pay to get it to my house?

I don't mind games with high learn curves (big WITP player here) so that doesn't intimidate me.

Sell me on it

Almost forgot to address the point of the thread.

Absolutely. This game is a huge improvement over Crown of Glory, itself a damn good game, and these kinds of innovative and authentic feeling wargames need to be supported. Dont allow a couple bugs to deter you from supporting a company like Western Civ with your dollars. They support the heck out of their products with patches when needed, they do public betas where knowledgable customers can help mold the final product, and are making big games about big events that get bigger and better with each title thus far.

[Gil R.]

What combination of tweaks are you guys looking at? Ive always thought a bit more population cost for reinforcement would be nice, putting in a reinforcement cap based on population and/or increasing the costs of Camps above a certain number, along with whatever you have to change to alter the behavior of the AI which currently seems to go crazy with the camp construction to the exclusion of all else.

Right now, the thing being tested is increasing the chance that camps will deplete the population levels in a city, which reduces the maximum number of brigades that can be raised each year. The downside to that is that it also reduces economic production in a city, so it's not necessarily the perfect "fix." We're still fiddling. After all, we don't want to create a problem that doesn't exist by hamstringing the South's economy further.

The AI does seem to like building its camps. Maybe we'll do something about that. But we first want to change some of the constants before we actually start reprogramming.

[Gil R.]

Something just occurred to me -- are players who experience these large CSA armies playing with the march attrition/disease rules toggled off? That would certainly lead to bigger armies. (I'm not saying this would be the sole cause, just a contributing factor.)

[madgamer2]

WORTY EVERY PENNY! if Civil War is you interest.

Madgamer

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Right now, the thing being tested is increasing the chance that camps will deplete the population levels in a city, which reduces the maximum number of brigades that can be raised each year. The downside to that is that it also reduces economic production in a city, so it's not necessarily the perfect "fix." We're still fiddling. After all, we don't want to create a problem that doesn't exist by hamstringing the South's economy further.

Now that I think about it more, since it is true that increasing population costs will gimp the economy, the best way of handling it would be by making a "reinforcement cap" above which further camps would do no good and base this cap on the total maximum population of all cities held by each side (ensure the AI wont built "useless" camps as well).

Then beyond that point its just a matter of figuring out which numbers will produce a historical result of each side having more numerous brigades of smaller size as the war goes on due to the impossibility of making good all the losses and the need to carefully spread the limited reinforcements to maximize the number of effective units.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Something just occurred to me -- are players who experience these large CSA armies playing with the march attrition/disease rules toggled off? That would certainly lead to bigger armies. (I'm not saying this would be the sole cause, just a contributing factor.)

I believe some people are doing a bad job of capturing beaten brigades in the pursuit phase, which allows them to see the upper limits of whatever balance issues there are with the reinforcement numbers.