Unbalaced, really?

[mmarquo]

I think the game engine is very detailed and rich, and there are issues of quality versus quantity of troops for both sides. In my second AI match as the Union I have learned to be very, very judicious in which troops I purchase, and the posture makes a huge difference. Also, using the support units properly can have a profound effect.

For the record, TD is a true gentleman and scholar; he is a gracious and tenacious opponent.

Soon I will scurrying from MT and TD; life is a well of joy.

Marquo [:)]

[Q-Ball]

I am in the camp that the Union needs help. But given Ace's post that the Union gets more as the game goes on, it maybe can be a tweek for the early game.

First,

There clearly is a problem in early 1862. The Union starts in a position where you have to potentially wait for the industrial complex to catch-up.

Though the Union gets double recruits, though, where does the money come from for these guys? The Union has a per-turn money advantage of about 100. So far, we see that Rebs get roughly 150, and Union 250. That is 3000 for a year and 5000 for a year, respectively. Both sides, though, receive the SAME amount through Treasury events. If both sides select all 3, each will receive another 2400 per year. So, total yearly take is 5400 Reb, and 7400 Union.

The problem is the Union has to spend part of it's 2000 advantage to pay the recruits. Then what? See the problem? The problem isn't recruits so much for the Union, it's that they can't afford to max the recruits AND buy all the units necessary.

And buildling Militia, I don't like that....first it's a bunch of work for the Union player to try to balance the game, and second it removes alot of Chrome. I like all the "15th Illinois "Evans Rifles" stuff, you lose that with Militia builds.

The problem, I think, is money, specifically that an economy that is 1/9th the size of the Union somehow receives the same benefit as the Union. That ain't right.

[Ace1_slith]

Have you tried putting more transports in the shipping box. That and ws to money event can yield additional 100 $ per turn. In addition, US has more requisition RGDs. And IMHO all out militia build is an error. It is a cheap infantry. They cost less $ and the same conscripts. It is a poor man's army, not a rich men's army.
Where US recourses advantage does go to waste are the WS. There may be some changes for it in the next patch, but I cannot talk about it.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Have you tried putting more transports in the shipping box. That and ws to money event can yield additional 100 $ per turn.

I have. It does not help that much.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Have you tried putting more transports in the shipping box. That and ws to money event can yield additional 100 $ per turn. In addition, US has more requisition RGDs. And IMHO all out militia build is an error. It is a cheap infantry. They cost less $ and the same conscripts. It is a poor man's army, not a rich men's army.
Where US recourses advantage does go to waste are the WS. There may be some changes for it in the next patch, but I cannot talk about it.

Good to know that may be addressed. I just think the US needs early help.

War Supplies are an early limitation for the CSA, but after that, don't seem to be a limitation for either side

[veji1]

Couldn't the treasury events just yield double the money for the Union to begin with ? then let's see how it goes with this simple fix.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Have you tried putting more transports in the shipping box. That and ws to money event can yield additional 100 $ per turn.

I have. It does not help that much.

When I did this in a test game, it gets you about $70 total a turn. That's moving every transport, getting merchies, etc.

But you need some transports for moving troops, and building more just makes the short-term problem worse for the Union

[veji1]

what impact would a doubling of the money one gets from treasury events have ?

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: veji1

what impact would a doubling of the money one gets from treasury events have ?

Well, on the chart I did before:

Union per Year: 9800
Rebs: 5400

That may be a bit aggressive. Hard to say, as it's possible Union also has to be spend more on recruits, which eats-up some of the advantage

At first glance, it does look like it may pull the lever a bit too far

[Toro12]

Just for what it's worth, my experience with the first game I played (as Union) did see all of these issues of huge Southern forces. It didn't last. Historically, the Union did have an issue creating a successful campaign in '62 anyway (Grant aside), but in '63 my game saw the Union take absolute control of the war, so much so that despite these huge Southern forces in 1862 (which I suspect did not have good replacement support, as they seemed to fade away by mid-63), I won the war in late 1863. That was a bit frustrating... (yeah, frustrated I won; the quickness of the win was the frustrating part).

Mind you, 1862 had me panicky at times, particularly chasing that Southern army back-and-forth in Northern Indiana and Michigan (not possible in reality, so I adjusted the AI for current game), but the turn-about was swift in 1863.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: cassmj

Just for what it's worth, my experience with the first game I played (as Union) did see all of these issues of huge Southern forces. It didn't last. Historically, the Union did have an issue creating a successful campaign in '62 anyway (Grant aside), but in '63 my game saw the Union take absolute control of the war, so much so that despite these huge Southern forces in 1862 (which I suspect did not have good replacement support, as they seemed to fade away by mid-63), I won the war in late 1863. That was a bit frustrating... (yeah, frustrated I won; the quickness of the win was the frustrating part).

Mind you, 1862 had me panicky at times, particularly chasing that Southern army back-and-forth in Northern Indiana and Michigan (not possible in reality, so I adjusted the AI for current game), but the turn-about was swift in 1863.

Good points, but I think we're mostly concerned with PBEM play in balance. It's too hard to balance the AI, not sure you could ever do that.

[veji1]

Qball and other PBEM players, I'd be interested to hear your view now that some of your games are further along, do you still see the game as unbalanced ie posing a problem in terms of gameplay, or rather not reflecting RL numbers but providing balanced game play in line with what one could expect ?

[Sorta]

In PBEM at end of '61 as Union as has been a relaxed affair on my side so far - playing AACW as Union I was always just holding on to Washington at this point. Even in mid-west I have strong forces and don't feel under any significant pressure.

Virginia feels like trench warfare not a war of movement.

[Michael T]

Well my game with Brad is now late Dec 1862 and as far as I can tell we are close to 1:1 on the ground right across the front from east to west. I have lost around 50K men in fruitless morale sapping attacks in 1862. Probably took 25K of Rebels with them so not a total waste.

It's my first game and I know little of the CW really. But its been a blast and there are many avenues of strategies to explore in future games.

As for the balance issue its still up in the air as to what happens in 1863 and beyond. If the current rate of growth for both armies remains the same then I can't see how I will ever get an advantage somewhere. I am just trusting that the game delivers me some numerical advantage in 1863 so that some progress can be made. I don't think I won a single major battle in 1862. The only highlight was the virtual wiping out of Stuart's Corp that got trapped behind my lines. Everything else was a disaster, but some ground was made in the east. Richmond is on the front lines. But the territorial gains in the east have meant no progress at all elsewhere.

If I had taken a couple of Corp away from the east and sent them west to gain some traction there I would have felt very insecure in the east. Make no mistake the South is very strong thru 1861-1862.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Well my game with Brad is now late Dec 1862 and as far as I can tell we are close to 1:1 on the ground right across the front from east to west. I have lost around 50K men in fruitless morale sapping attacks in 1862. Probably took 25K of Rebels with them so not a total waste.

It's my first game and I know little of the CW really. But its been a blast and there are many avenues of strategies to explore in future games.

As for the balance issue its still up in the air as to what happens in 1863 and beyond. If the current rate of growth for both armies remains the same then I can't see how I will ever get an advantage somewhere. I am just trusting that the game delivers me some numerical advantage in 1863 so that some progress can be made. I don't think I won a single major battle in 1862. The only highlight was the virtual wiping out of Stuart's Corp that got trapped behind my lines. Everything else was a disaster, but some ground was made in the east. Richmond is on the front lines. But the territorial gains in the east have meant no progress at all elsewhere.

If I had taken a couple of Corp away from the east and sent them west to gain some traction there I would have felt very insecure in the east. Make no mistake the South is very strong thru 1861-1862.

I just wrote this in my AAR; I think the trajectory may be OK, but the Union still needs early help, IMO.

We just did a headcount: CSA is at 235,000, an increase since March of 25,000, and the Union is at 310,000, an increase of 100,000. That trajectory feels about right. The problem I think is that the Union should be at this numerical superiority at the beginning of 1862, not the end (historically, numbers were over 2-1 Union, but I think in game, for gameplay, can't go that far)

So, maybe everything is OK, except the Union needs a better starting point. That could be either a) a pot of initial money, or b) more money received for treasury events, or bit of both. Some recruits, too. Maybe boost Union take by 50% on Treasury events.

The other problem I see is that the CSA is swimming in recruits. I have over 350 sitting around waiting for guns. I haven't used ANY recruitment premiums. I am short on cash. This is a problem. I think the CSA needs a reduction in the number of recruits each turn; this would also improve Union position in early 1862, since early-on the CSA does lack recruits. Reducing recruit flows would push those builds for the CSA into the future. An easy way to fix that is simply to take out 2-4 Plantation structures.

[14thKyVolInf]

I am an ancient wargamer, but new to Civil War II. Still, I do see a slant towards the South having a heavy advantage in the early part of the game. I might have a good fix. In the South the GOVERNORS decided on the initial mobilization & deployment of regiments. Nearly all were insanely paranoid about their seaward defenses. The Confederacy had a helluva time organizing field armies because the governors constantly screamed for more troops to defend their coasts and refused to release regiments to the field armies. They invested a HUGE amount of resources in coastal defense. Also the paranoia over a possible slave revolt kept many men in their home states. Perhaps an historical fixing of units to coastal areas might be one fix, or a requirement that departments have a minimum number & type of troops or some offsetting price be paid... I realize that playability is as important as historical accuracy. This might kill two birds as it will help with the initial problem and leave the CSA stronger later in the Rebellion... Oh, and in introducing myself, I had ancestors who fought on both sides during the Rebellion. At one point, one of my gr gr grandfathers probably raided the farm of another while he and his brothers were off fighting in the Atlanta Campaign. Two gr gr uncles were paroled after the Vicksburg surrender and went home to join the partisan guerrillas that ravaged E Ky. Another Gr Gr grandfather was so resentful when his side lost that he helped found the local chapter of a well known fraternal organization which was noted for wearing white hoods, midnight rides, and burning crosses.