ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Frankly I agree that we're too generous to the CSA's economy. Our original economy, lovingly researched by Mr Z., was much more stringent for the South and a bit more generous for the North. Play testers -- to a man -- hated it: they had all sorts of options and could barely afford to do more than one thing every three turns. In response to this we scaled the economies a bit closer to parity and added some additional economic options, so players can increase or decrease the scale of either economy. By adjusting these power settings before one plays he can effectively adjust the economies to have any relation he wants, and so those who enjoy playing a very impoverished CSA still can.
Don't have a real problem with "giving the CSA player the ability to do more than was historically possible", but what about the Union Player? How many PBEM opponants do you think are going to say to him "sure you got 'hosed' in the design..., go ahead and take the "additional resources"? You should have "bumped" BOTH sides up to keep a bit more of the "feel" of the Civil War's actual situation. Instead you admit that you adjusted the Union DOWN. Who says a "game" can't be fun and still at least "suggest" accuracy? Too "even" is just as big a turn-off as too "one-sided". Not saying the Union should be the historic 200+% as powerful as the Confederacy..., but couldn't you have settled on something in the 150% range? You have given the "defense" a number of game advantages, and the South really needs only to defend strategically. Between "even" players the South should lose perhaps 2 of 3, or maybe even 3 of 4 times---which is what makes the "bragging rights" to a win so gratifying.
