Balance in the 1861 Scenario

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Yeah, but is bullet playing A.I. Intermediate level?

[bullet911]

Yeah, but is bullet playing A.I. Intermediate level?

Multiplayer, recognise there names from WIE so would say both sides have a good understanding of game mechanics etc. both sides as new as everyone else to civil war though (edited my post aswell)

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Yeah, but is bullet playing A.I. Intermediate level?

Multiplayer, recognise there names from WIE so would say both sides have a good understanding of game mechanics etc. both sides as new as everyone else to civil war though (edited my post aswell)

Legit strategy tips. thanks.

[battlevonwar]

Confederates need a miracle... In the face of a Superior General and yeah, there are probably things that can be done by a Wizard a General Forrest a Sherman by the time he tore through the entirety of the Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina.

North merely needs to hold, use her time and steady numbers to crumble the Southern Cookie. Chomp Chomp Chomp...

With this understanding, the ideal strats are very shallow and visible. Don't lose anything valuable as the South unless in exchange for something sweet. As the North just wait a moment and let the South become more of a Middle Weight and you a Heavy Weight... Game should be over unless she gets a hit in early. Or you win as a middle weight who avoids the KO

[Platoonist]

North merely needs to hold, use her time and steady numbers to crumble the Southern Cookie. Chomp Chomp Chomp...

Possibly makes for a poor gaming experience but boy, from a historical perspective that sentence accurately sums up Gen. Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan.

[battlevonwar]

Can't deny you're right... Just getting that timing game to closer to history!

North merely needs to hold, use her time and steady numbers to crumble the Southern Cookie. Chomp Chomp Chomp...

Possibly makes for a poor gaming experience but boy, from a historical perspective that sentence accurately sums up Gen. Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan.

[Patrat]

From my reading about the civil war, one thing that stands out, especially in the early years of the war, was the Union's inability to bring their superior numbers to bear in battles.

I was wondering if some sort of either zone of control penalty or swapping penalty could he applied to the Union, especially in the early years.

Just a thought.

[Platoonist]

From my reading about the civil war, one thing that stands out, especially in the early years of the war, was the Union's inability to bring their superior numbers to bear in battles.

I was wondering if some sort of either zone of control penalty or swapping penalty could he applied to the Union, especially in the early years.

Just a thought.

Part of that inability to bring superior numbers to bear lay with timid Union generals, easily bamboozled by poor intelligence and more devoted to not losing rather than winning.

So, in addition to what you mentioned, maybe make replacing "political" generals like Butler, Banks and McClellan more expensive. Something to simulate that these lousy generals were more difficult to sack due to their positions of patronage or popularity.

[*Lava*]

Bye the Bye... if the game gets balanced for PBEM, please let people know. I am totally not interesting in wasting my money on that.

Best advice I've seen is make a "balanced" PBEM scenario, for those so inclined.

[Beriand]

Bye the Bye... if the game gets balanced for PBEM, please let people know. I am totally not interesting in wasting my money on that.

Best advice I've seen is make a "balanced" PBEM scenario, for those so inclined.

Eh, many are still mixing up balance objectives. Goal A could be to make Confederacy on par with Union, so in '50% of games' South can push Northern armies, take Maryland, make their FS fall to 10% etc. As far as I observed, developers never indicated that they want to achieve goal A.

But there is goal B, so something close to history - CSA is probably bit stronger than in our timeline and can do thing or two, maybe sometimes raze Washington, but comes 62-63 they start to lose ground. Yet still '50% of the time' Confederacy can counterattack overextended troops and hold on to a couple of deep victory objectives (like Atlanta, Montgomery, Raleigh, Charleston etc.) until end date triggers. I believe this is the goal here.

Some people are not satisfied in B and would like to have very strong Confederacy to have two symmetric sides, but well, happens... there are always some mods and alternative scenarios I guess.

[battlevonwar]

Like a lot of games you can have a Minor Victory doing what's described below I believe. If you can hold onto enough objectives until the Vote in 1864(historical) you may win. If your opponent really mucks it up, you can outright win and if you do better than historically by a certain factor you have a level of victory or satisfaction.

AGEOD Civil War II, had a very OP Union that rarely would lose but of course you could win some victories to a point. I do feel that as far as I've taken the game so far it's going to be hard to replicate victories in 1863-64 for the CSA but that remains to be seen entirely. There may need to be tweaking and I pretty sure the developers will be working on or watching carefully making slight or major adjustments to make either side playable and entertaining.

This Thread which has been out only a Week! Has the most views I can see since the game came out and for good reason. Initially some hotshot player showed just how well an Expert Union can be handled. Now a Mediocre one may barely win in 1864 and many people no matter how many times they play will not be Experts. Some people understand how to exploit mechanics and a game more easily. Some will run hotseat 20 times for each idea or concept they have and every possible reaction to have a perfect view on what it is they want to achieve. You can't compete with some of those types of players.

Do I feel the '61 Scenario needs tweaking as I see it now(likely yes). I am sure that the Developers and Betatesters are as well, watching us and it's good now to post up an AAR and show your own experience. No game on release is balanced AGEOD's game wasn't. I played another title Warplan that took many iterations for their final release to be what I felt was balanced and even then they tweaked it a bit more. Regardless of the fact that I felt between two equally skilled players by 10 patches it was perfect.

Right now Experiences May Vary... Personally I am trying the South and The Union again and will see my own experience. I do, do a little Hotseat as I don't want to make the same error in Multiplayer 4-5 Times that I can just see for myself. And it's quite time efficient. It works sometimes accelerates your knowledge of how to play the game, how events work and what will happen if you do something you rarely would do against say an AI.

With all this complexity you will have to give the Devs probably a month or couple of weeks to get a feel. Then it may still not be right it may take them a couple of releases to really get a feel. You could alter the Original Scenario yourself but I don't feel that's necessary. Let's see... So Far it does appear that the Union is favored very quickly. Too quickly. So a modest boost to the CSA may be all that's needed. We'll see... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Bye the Bye... if the game gets balanced for PBEM, please let people know. I am totally not interesting in wasting my money on that.

Best advice I've seen is make a "balanced" PBEM scenario, for those so inclined.

Eh, many are still mixing up balance objectives. Goal A could be to make Confederacy on par with Union, so in '50% of games' South can push Northern armies, take Maryland, make their FS fall to 10% etc. As far as I observed, developers never indicated that they want to achieve goal A.

But there is goal B, so something close to history - CSA is probably bit stronger than in our timeline and can do thing or two, maybe sometimes raze Washington, but comes 62-63 they start to lose ground. Yet still '50% of the time' Confederacy can counterattack overextended troops and hold on to a couple of deep victory objectives (like Atlanta, Montgomery, Raleigh, Charleston etc.) until end date triggers. I believe this is the goal here.

Some people are not satisfied in B and would like to have very strong Confederacy to have two symmetric sides, but well, happens... there are always some mods and alternative scenarios I guess.

[Patrat]

Bye the Bye... if the game gets balanced for PBEM, please let people know. I am totally not interesting in wasting my money on that.

Best advice I've seen is make a "balanced" PBEM scenario, for those so inclined.

They are probably going to have to go that route.

As it is now the AI on either side can't beat my somewhat mediocre play, even when set to expert. So if you beef up the south for MP, the AI Union won't stand a chance against it.

Maybe the dev's can pull a rabbit out of the hat and balance the same scenario for both MP and SP, like in WiE. But I have my doubts.

[Beriand]

So if you beef up the south for MP, the AI Union won't stand a chance against it.

Uh, why? AI gets many free units through scripts, even if you do not change settings to higher difficulties. Technical strength of sides in MP and SP is different and can be arbitrarily different, I don't see why You could go only for one SP/MP in 'balance'.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

New patch v1.02 is now up, many of the fixes are addressing concerns raised in this thread, so I'm hoping you'll find it a considerable improvement in the game's balance.

- BNC

[Taxman66]

Possible suggestion:

Increase forts (particularly the historically stronger ones) to strength 7.

Allow forts to have a higher maximum strength with Fort modernization. You'd still have to 'pay' to reinforce it.

[Duedman]

Bye the Bye... if the game gets balanced for PBEM, please let people know. I am totally not interesting in wasting my money on that.

Best advice I've seen is make a "balanced" PBEM scenario, for those so inclined.

They are probably going to have to go that route.

As it is now the AI on either side can't beat my somewhat mediocre play, even when set to expert. So if you beef up the south for MP, the AI Union won't stand a chance against it.

Maybe the dev's can pull a rabbit out of the hat and balance the same scenario for both MP and SP, like in WiE. But I have my doubts.

Isn't the Trent War scenario supposed to be just that? Or is this one the other way round?

[*Lava*]

Change the "special" bonus for Elite generals to defense instead of offensive and see what happens.

This war clearly favored the defense.

Even Lee couldn't win on the offense against a well defended position against a mediocre general at Gettysburg.

[battlevonwar]

Lee could of feasibly won at Gettysburg, if had Cavalry Scouts and Stonewall(or don't tell your Man to take those Heights if Practicable? Tell him to take those HEIGHTS!) would of taken those heights perhaps the Union would of done what Lee did in reverse? Maybe it's a fiction and the Union troops would of fallen back to more defensible ground but the end result would of been the same. More casualties the South couldn't afford and the Union would of had low morale. They would of fought again the South couldn't fight again. It's like throwing that last set of Punches as Boxer but in the end, "You lost on points." So if you don't get a KO it's over for you anyway. Smart guy just puts up his guard and evades. This is the META strategy for this game unless you find a gamey run around which people find irritating but the War could of been and should of been even more defensive. . . For the South

Change the "special" bonus for Elite generals to defense instead of offensive and see what happens.

This war clearly favored the defense.

Even Lee couldn't win on the offense against a well defended position against a mediocre general at Gettysburg.