Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[Shoot Me_I Explode]

[font="times new roman"]As it stands now I feel the game is pretty bias toward the confederacy for the simple reason of raiders, runners, and plantations.  Raiders are just too effective for the low risk they offer.  Every single turn against JonReb I lose 30+ supply somewhere to his raiders forcing me to several of my division in normal supply level which sucks gold needed to build mansions away.  I am literary out of building room in the north and have to wait two turns before I accumulate enough gold to build one mansion from spending so much money to keep my units supplied.  I lost my two Calvary units to random encounters with from the enemy moving a division into the providence where my Calvary unit was located while it was chasseing a raider unit.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Plantations are another matter.  You get so much from investing so little into a plantation.  50 labor and 50 horses for a building that supports 4 buildings, +1 money, +2 labor, +2 horses and all for only waiting 12 turns.  Against JonReb again I’ve checked last turn through his cities and he has no less then 12 plantations under construction as it stands.  Must be worthwhile if he’s willing to wait 12 turns for them.  Maybe if they added on to the cost 100 gold they would be fair, but any building that supports more buildings and produces goods is unfair as long as one side has a monopoly over it.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Same thing with Runners, they can produce too many resources too quickly.  In the AAR’s I’ve seen they fetch 60 or 70 horses, money and so on, almost doubling the output of the entire south for that turn.  Plus the fact they seem impossible to destroy makes them very frustrating thing to fight.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Any one of these three units by themselves would not be unfair or unbalanced but because the CSA has all three, and the Union has absolutely no equal to any of them severely evens out the economics of the game and I believe gives the south a distinct advantage in some areas. [/font]

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

like this

Sorry to be obtuse, Hard Sarge, but what "this" are you focusing on? What I noticed is all those mansions. They don't produce the labor, iron, etc., that planations do, so why build them instead?

[mlees]

GQ, the only advantage of mansions over plantations is that mansions are finished faster. If your swimming in resources, you need expansion room in the cities as soon as you can get it... and the +2 labor/horses may not matter that much, then.

spruce, I agree that runners are tough to counter, especially as sea invasions are not practical.

I thought that I saw a statement around here somewhere that the goods made available to the CSA runners is based on 1) Diplomatic relationship levels, and 2) open (nonblockaded) southern ports.

With navy ships being so expensive (and take a long time to show up), few players, if any, build enough ships to blockade the south.

Conquering the coastal provinces (and their ports) is the only alternative, except that you can't change ownership of said province unless it's adjacent to one of your own (from a Union point of view).

That's why I had suggested those changes. Do you think they wouldn't be enough?

[Hard Sarge]

GC
well, as was said, I am concerned with time, not resouces, look at the map, I do not need goods, the Union is making them for me

also, the rules say, a Plantation changes to a Mansion once the Slaves are freed, so I wouldn't get any labor or Horses by building them, just wasted time

which if you can tell from the names, those are my Iron working centers and my Siege gun makers, wait a few turn, and build up my resources, and then buy what I want

[marecone]

Camps issue
- I suggest that you leave the cost for camps but make one modification. Each time camp provides new men your total of working men in cities would be reduced by some number. Let say for 500 new reinforcements you would loose 0.1 working men in that province. Or maybe different numbers, I dunno.
By doing this you would make players think twice before building 20 camps or so. Also, if you would go with my idea then you should include option to turn of camps in some cities so they don't "die out".

[Feltan]

I have to agree that the Confederates have a huge advantage in the game. I have tweaked power number, and I simply can't fine anything close to historical.

1. The replacement/camp issue needs to be fixed. It gives the South too much of an advantage.

2. I can live with runners; what I find more vexing is the european countries just shipping a ton of stuff that can't be intercepted or countered. Vast sums of raw materails and technology could simply NOT be shipped (let the runners fetch it) and the game would better.

3. Every container should have a leader at the start -- even if they suck. The Union is screwed from the get go just trying to pump leaders out west.

4. I question the at start navies. The Union navy seems underrepresented.

5. The Union needs more cashflow. Even with a generous economy, you simply can't produce enough $$$ to build a navy, research facilities, etc, etc

6. There is no point to do any sea invasions until the ownership thing gets corrected. You simply can't recreate the Union grabbing New Orleans early in the game, or occupying much of Florida. The South's back door is effectively secure.

The game mechanics seem just fine, in fact they are really good. However, I don't know who playtested this game. If you have a boner for the South, I suppose it could be a fun game. And, I am not looking for something so restricted that all you get are historical results. However, you should be able to envision a game where historical results are, or are close to, possible. It is painful playing the Union and a breeze playing the South -- it needs to be the other way around.

Regards,
Feltan

[tevans6220]

Something that I think needs changed is the morale/quality advantage given to the South in the standard scenario. The troop quality of both sides was practically the same for the entire war. The difference was in leadership and I think that's already reflected in the South having better leadership at the start. It was never a case of Southern troops being better fighters than their Northern counterparts. Leadership made the difference.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Feltan
6. There is no point to do any sea invasions until the ownership thing gets corrected. You simply can't recreate the Union grabbing New Orleans early in the game, or occupying much of Florida. The South's back door is effectively secure.

Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources.

The only possible disconnect with regard to coastal operations is that the Union forces seem more vulnerable to attrition and counterattack than they were historically. I have wondered why the South did not briefly detach a couple of divisions and retake some of these. Some, e.g., Burnside on the North Carolina coast, were quite small, I think. Maybe someone who has studied these coastal operations can cast light on this question.

[spruce]

also, the rules say, a Plantation changes to a Mansion once the Slaves are freed, so I wouldn't get any labor or Horses by building them, just wasted time

coughing ...

I had the Union emancipate in april 1862 - I hope it didn't effect the slaves in the South ? Meaning impact the production on confederate plantations?

[Mike Scholl]

Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources



Actually, this is not the case. New Orleans led eventually to all of Louisana, and the invasion attempt into Texas (Red River Campaign), and to the capture of Port Hudson on the Mississippi. Take a good look at a map of the South in 1864 and you will see very large areas of the Coast and a good deal inland have been taken from the sea.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

ORIGINAL: Feltan
6. There is no point to do any sea invasions until the ownership thing gets corrected. You simply can't recreate the Union grabbing New Orleans early in the game, or occupying much of Florida. The South's back door is effectively secure.

Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources.

The only possible disconnect with regard to coastal operations is that the Union forces seem more vulnerable to attrition and counterattack than they were historically. I have wondered why the South did not briefly detach a couple of divisions and retake some of these. Some, e.g., Burnside on the North Carolina coast, were quite small, I think. Maybe someone who has studied these coastal operations can cast light on this question.

The sea did march to Sherman. 25,000 men under John Schofield marched inland from Wilmington to join up with Sherman at Goldsbore, NC.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
We should have provided two starting scenarios -- one with more historical numbers and one that was more balanced. In the game with the historical numbers, the CSA could barely afford anything, needed to rely almost entirely on impressments and blockade runner income to buy anything new. I personally liked that, but people who were getting into the game were frustrated to have so many options of things to buy but so few things they could actually do.

Sorry, I've been away from this forum for a while because real life was too pressing.

There seems to be a split here between players who want a historical simulation and other players who don't care about that but want a fun game.

I'm puzzled that anyone sees this as a conflict. Any game such as this one should be a historical simulation and a fun game. If it fails in either respect, that's a defect.

Unfortunately, some people seem to think that "historical" means adding more and more details. This is not necessary. For me, a very simple game can still qualify as historical as long as the few details it has are more or less correct. Adding more details actually makes it more difficult to be historical, because you have to get all the details correct, and you also have to consider the very tricky interactions between all those details.

If players feel that a historical simulation would be unbalanced, well, the game already includes controls that can be used to adjust the balance. End of problem.

I think it's OK to add unhistorical options for people who want them, such as reequipping the Confederates with AK-47s in 1864; but these fantasy scenarios (if the company has the extra man-hours to add them) should be optional and not hardwired into the basic game.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: spruce

also, the rules say, a Plantation changes to a Mansion once the Slaves are freed, so I wouldn't get any labor or Horses by building them, just wasted time

coughing ...

I had the Union emancipate in april 1862 - I hope it didn't effect the slaves in the South ? Meaning impact the production on confederate plantations?

As far as I know Union Emancipation has NO effect on Plantations in the South. Now when or if the Union captures any cities with plantations I assume they will convert to mansions and then if the South retakes said city it will have no plantations ( but if they held it I assume they could build some)

[Twotribes]

I am confused.. I read in other threads outside this one ( made by Eric for one) of things that seem to be decided BUT I dont see that here. Specifically can someone point me to the overwhelming opinion expressed in this thread that A) Camps dont cost enough and B) the solution is to tack on a monetary amount and restriction based on numbers in a province.

What I have seen is a suggestion of this BUT no concensus on it. Or are cer5tain posters given more wieght on their "suggestions" then others?

Now I have seen more than one poster here tell you that the South has to big an advantage, does this mean that it is decided to tone them down and to beef up the North?

Just a suggestion BUT how about a post that says what has been "decided " so far so we can all agree or disagree?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I am confused.. I read in other threads outside this one ( made by Eric for one) of things that seem to be decided BUT I dont see that here. Specifically can someone point me to the overwhelming opinion expressed in this thread that A) Camps dont cost enough and B) the solution is to tack on a monetary amount and restriction based on numbers in a province.
Now I have seen more than one poster here tell you that the South has to big an advantage, does this mean that it is decided to tone them down and to beef up the North?

I think the basis for many complaints is not "how much" camps cost; but "what" they cost. Large amounts of "Horses"...., of which the Confederacy recieves far too many (based on the quotes from the 1860 Census) , or the Union far too few. Almost all problems would be solved if the amount of this resource available to each side were an "equal" 30-40 to start, with Kentucky holding the "balance". Nobody really wants EITHER side building dozens of cheap "Camps".

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
Something that I think needs changed is the morale/quality advantage given to the South in the standard scenario. The troop quality of both sides was practically the same for the entire war. The difference was in leadership and I think that's already reflected in the South having better leadership at the start. It was never a case of Southern troops being better fighters than their Northern counterparts. Leadership made the difference.

Nosworthy, in "The Bloody Crucible of Courage", argues that the biggest advantage that Southern infantry had is that they tended to come from rural backgrounds and were more likely to have learned how to shoot well while growing up, whereas the Northern soldiers tended to be more urban and many were handling guns for the first time. Don't know if there's anything to this, but it seems plausible.

[ericbabe]

As far as Camps go, my current notion is to reduce the horse cost slightly and add a monetary cost.  The cost may be progressive by quantity/province, not sure.  I haven't decided anything absolutely based on this thread yet, though a while back I did post a summary of what seemed to me to have been preponderant opinions (that would be feasible things to change) at that point in time.

I like the suggestion to tie Camps into population levels, this is something our beta testers suggested as well.  Could do something such as: a Camp has a certain chance to lower the Men in the province it's in every turn and that they cease to function when the Men reaches 0.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Nosworthy, in "The Bloody Crucible of Courage", argues that the biggest advantage that Southern infantry had is that they tended to come from rural backgrounds and were more likely to have learned how to shoot well while growing up, whereas the Northern soldiers tended to be more urban and many were handling guns for the first time. Don't know if there's anything to this, but it seems plausible.

This analysis leaves out all those "farm boys" from Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, etc. It contains just enough truth to be mis-leading. The real strength was the Southern Militia Tradition..., Southerners were more likely to join such groups, and take it more seriously (mostly because of the possibility of slave revolts). This meant that in the "initial call ups" for troops, the South got more units that were already trained to some extent and used to being together. After these units were taken into service, the recruit pools for either side were fairly similar in quality. One BIG difference was in susceptability to desease. Turns out those "weak puny city boys were a lot less likely to come down with various forms of desease, already having aquired some immunity in their crowded streets back home.

[Twotribes]

Fine, when you do that I will just be forced to add even MORE population to every city, since even now one can NOT come even remotely close to historical numbers in the civil war.

And I will again point out what I see as the concensus, that you at least tone down the south, I would suggest you beef up the North. There appears to be NO justification historically for the economy you have given the south IN realtion to what you have given the North. In fact the biggest glaring advantage goes not to the North but to the South, in Horses and the ability through "diplomacy" and bloackade runners to easily feed said economy and provide free research, at times in crazy numbers.

I enjoy the attrition concept too, but not as it is presently, I am going to have to find it in the files and change it if I can if I want to use it. There is , in my opinion, No excuse for the Union ( whom I play mostly) to lose as large a number as they do for actually going on the offensive. I moved several very large armies into enemy territory ( before the move I needed something like 20000 replacements to fill my ranks out. The next turn after a couple minimal battles ( I lost few men and had no lost battles and NO surrendered units) I needed well over 200,000 replacements, and no I didnt just research bigger brigades.

My suggestion being that A) hospitals effect to some degree provinces without railroads and B) that the effect of Hospitals occurs in contested provinces as well ( in the above case there were 3 forts in Fredricksburg preventing me from conquering said province, thus part of the HUGE attritional losses, which I had every reason to believe I would continue to suffer until I managed to capture or destroy all 3 forts AND capture said province) I also had the same problem with Fort Donaldson, a large army there unable to be helped by hospitals because on the first move I am unable to seige and capture a fort. As a side note I had researched all the hospital techs except the one for the one that effects detailed battles.

But most of this is modifiable, so I hope any changes you make are still in files that we can modify if we disagree with the majority?

And if I havent said it enough, I REALLY LIKE this game....and as far as I can tell you have done a very good job of making it changeable by the individual player both with numerous options on play screen and a easy to mod file system ( if a little cluttered and not so intuitive at times) . So even though I may seem a pain in the neck, THANK YOU.

[spruce]

I think we have to tweak - not find the exact number - or the historical justified number ...