Matrix Games Forums

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.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Mike, I'll be curious to know your opinions of economic game-balance after you've played it at different settings and gotten a feel for the different levels of money, iron, horses and labor that both sides have and how these different levels affect game-play. As I've pointed out before, players who want to give the Union a boost and the South a penalty can do so by adjusting the power settings. I'd like to know if you find changing those settings is satisfactory, as I suspect it will be.

Right now I'm wondering why you can't chose a "holding box" and from there bring up a screen of available leaders to assign to it.

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Mike
I was trying to find some numbers for you

on normal settings (power) with poor Ecc checked

I get for the Union
274 gold, 87 labor, 52 Iron and 32 Horse

for the CSA
204, 61, 26 and 56

(looks like there is some random factor going on, or not every city starts with the same resouces picked)

with the Union set at +3 power
315, 117, 68 and 32

with the Union set at +3 and the CSA set at -3
321, 111, 79 and 30
with the CSA
142, 14, 4 and 8

plus do not forget, the odds are Kentucky should go Union, and that gives them a extra 10 gold and 10 Horses

so over all, if you do not like the numbers you get, you can change it so it matches what you want or feel is right