Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[christof139]

About the actual troop strength the Gunboat and Ship units are supposed to represent, I am way off in suggesting reducing the actual ship representation and perhaps 10 is definitely more appropriate a number to use as it now is in the game. A player would never be able to produce and represent the entire Union navy anyway. Union Ironclad units could represent only 2 - 3 Ironclads, and the Confed Ironclad unit could represent only 1 - 2 ironclads.
 
Whatever, but it does seem the costs may be high and production time too long. Those people more experienced with this game would have a better handle on the Startegic naval aspects, as I tend to be a bit more grand tactical in viewing the naval aspects, and that will only work to a certain degree when you have a strategic level game.
 
Chris

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Twinkle

Agreed that camps could be made a bit more expansive, but both sides should start with a couple more. One way to go is that each built camp should forever remove one city manpower (without decreasing the production), and cities should never be able to build more then two camps as well as never be on a zero manpower.

I like the second suggestion here. Camps should not be more expensive -- there is nothing about a camp that is expensive per se. But they should be limited by manpower, and so there should be a continuing manpower cost.

[General Quarters]

More Dramatic Fog of War:

The current fog of war, giving inaccurate info about enemy troop strengths, is very good. However, it does not fully capture the dramatic fog of war that often occurred. Sometimes the enemy army would simply disappear, or would be thought to be in a region where it wasn't, or thought to be present when it had already left (e.g., the Quaker guns).

It would be good for the game to have all these possibilities. The rebel army could move to the Shenandoah and still appear, for one turn perhaps, to be in Fredericksburg. Or it could appear to be in Shen, when it was really in Fred. Or it could simply disappear, so the Union doesn't know where it is. Or it could appear to be in two places simultaneously, representing conflicting reports.

There might be requirements for this ability, such as cavalry superiority or a leader with a certain trait or some kind of research improvement. There might have to be some way to trigger it, such as extra secrecy (which might have a cost or loss of benefit of some kind). Such a change could make the game more dramatic, exciting, and historically realistic.

I make the suggestion in the game balance thread because deception was one of the primary ways the South managed to fend off superior Union forces. The South could be given an enhanced ability to move undetected.

[General Quarters]

Gunboats and Sieges:

I am playing the Conf. The Union is besieging the forts in Tenn-Miss River. There are two gunboats in river around Cairo, and the Union has never used them in its attacks on the forts. Might want to change that.

[decaturkev]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: incbob

On the reinforcement issue could it be possible to set it so that the North gets more phsyical reinforcements, but their quality is lower?

Why should their quality be lower? Certainly the South had an advantage in the "initial rush to the colors" in 1861 with their well-developed Militia Tradition. But once those units were mobilized, what basis would there be for one side's "volunteer" Americans to be any better quality than the other side's?

It's part of the same myth that says confederate generals were military geniuses and union leaders were bumbling fools.

I am not sure to which myth concerning CSA generals you are referring. Douglas Freeman in Lee's Lieutenants makes it quite clear there were major problems in both the initial organization of the Army of the Confederacy and the capabilities/talents of the leaders. Which myth makes out the genius of the likes of, for example, G.W. Smith, Beauregard, Magruder, and Heth?

IMO, the loss of the Mississippi and Vicksburg was the high water mark for the CSA. That shut the door on any European intervention as well as splitting the Confederacy. Gettysburg was not as stategically significant, but it made all the news in the East. If Davis and Lee had listened to "Old Pete" and fought a defensive campagin in the East as vigorously as Petersburg was conducted, from the begining, history could have been a lot different. Of course, this would require both; an effective Navy of the Confederacy, and a capable diplomatic effort focused on Washington, not London or Paris.

[General Quarters]

AI Plundering:

I'm playing the South. Once the AI took Memphis, I expected it to move against other targets. Instead, it has remained there, plundering what are now its own buildings turn after turn -- letting me run out the clock.

Early on, the AI destroyed a Mansion and reduced my National Will. I do not see a benefit to the Union for it to continue plundering -- a hospital, an arsenal I think, and so on. Maybe it could be told not to plunder cities it has already taken or at least to stop once it has destroyed a mansion.

[decaturkev]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Twinkle

it does not... but the system they use sort of hint at that, we would otherwise have completely different cost for each unit depending on if it is the south or north that produce it. And that would have created a horrible discussion between the pro-Union and the pro-Conf groups that do their best to assure the victory before they start to play.

Why would there be different costs? A regiment is a regiment. Why would one side's cost more than the other?

The cost would be different due to national economics and the impact to the GNP of the two governments. The ability of the Union to produce the necessary accoutrements for outfitting units was vastly superior to the Confederacy.

[chris0827]

[quote][I am not sure to which myth concerning CSA generals you are referring. Douglas Freeman in Lee's Lieutenants makes it quite clear there were major problems in both the initial organization of the Army of the Confederacy and the capabilities/talents of the leaders. Which myth makes out the genius of the likes of, for example, G.W. Smith, Beauregard, Magruder, and Heth?
/quote]
 
You're one of the few people on this board who have ever heard of Freeman. The majority believe that the South had a large leadership advantage over the North. If they read Freeman they would call it Yankee Propaganda.

[decaturkev]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

[I am not sure to which myth concerning CSA generals you are referring. Douglas Freeman in Lee's Lieutenants makes it quite clear there were major problems in both the initial organization of the Army of the Confederacy and the capabilities/talents of the leaders. Which myth makes out the genius of the likes of, for example, G.W. Smith, Beauregard, Magruder, and Heth?
/quote]

You're one of the few people on this board who have ever heard of Freeman. The majority believe that the South had a large leadership advantage over the North. If they read Freeman they would call it Yankee Propaganda.

My dear sir, any truly dedicated historiphile or grognard of the Second War for Independence has read all of Douglass Southall Freeman's disertations on the subject. Dr. Freeman only wrote two million words alone concerning the Army of Northern Virginia. One of my favorite sources of reference material on the subject is MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. I am beginng to appreciate the propaganda effort on the part of the Confederacy on providing an alibi for Washington to rationalize the early failures of its army in the East. Actually, the Pinkerton Service went a long way in providing faulty inteligence to McClellan and other Federal Generals, as well as Pesident Lincoln.

[christof139]

The Pinkerton Service back then = [8|][:'(][>:][&:]. However, it was once said that Military intelligence can = and Oxymoron sometimes. So, this might just certainly apply to the Pinkertons.

Yet, McClellelan, was an arrogant noodle brain, and sincerely thought he was always outnumbered until the day he died!!!! Including at Antietam/Sharpsburg. What a nut. I have read some of his post war writings and he sticks to the same story of being outnumbered even when people, Southern military commanders as well as Northern, and records positively respectively stated and proved otherwise.

Hmmm, Little Mac just may have made an interesting President afterall. Him, Hillary and Bill would no doubt get along fine, probably also with Pres. Bush and aquaintances.

Is is is, and since is is, then it will become was, therefore, is = was. Yup. no time frame even considered, either literally and linguistically or in reality.

Very similar to Relativity, Special Relativity, the Speed of Light, and etc. Myself, I like wagons and wagon speed and time, where and when one can sit, stretch out and snooze, and carry all sorts of victuals and contraband aka plunder. [>:]

Chris

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

AI Plundering:

I'm playing the South. Once the AI took Memphis, I expected it to move against other targets. Instead, it has remained there, plundering what are now its own buildings turn after turn -- letting me run out the clock.

Early on, the AI destroyed a Mansion and reduced my National Will. I do not see a benefit to the Union for it to continue plundering -- a hospital, an arsenal I think, and so on. Maybe it could be told not to plunder cities it has already taken or at least to stop once it has destroyed a mansion.

I was mistaken about the first part. The AI had taken the last fort but not yet taken the city. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether it is in the AI's interest to plunder a city that it will soon own.

[General Quarters]

Issues from Union AI gameplay:

Playing my second game as the South (with Union +2), I found the Union AI inactive everywhere except West Virginia and Memphis area. Fair enough.

Once the AI took Memphis, I braced myself for further attack, but it just sat there month after month for over a year, even though my nearest troops were in Nasvhille and Jackson, with lots of empty provinces in between (as well as the two western Ky provinces, which I had taken early). Meanwhile, I had an army that had taken most of southern Missouri and part of Kansas and then retreated all the way to Jackson. So all that was undefended.

What appeared to be the Union Army of the Ohio did take Western Virginia, but once I moved an equally large army to Abingdon, that army too became quiet and never stirred again.

With all the inactivity, I stopped building or doing anything except going to end turn, end turn, end turn, to see if the Union AI would ever do anything. Again, many months went by. Nothing happened, except a lone Union brigade wandered into Lee's army in Abingdon.

So I get going end-turn, end-turn, end-turn, and all of a sudden, after all these months, the Army of the Potomac moved into Shenandoah, and the Memphis army started sieging Ft Henry. I could not see what had changed that made them go from both being quiescent to both being nicely aggressive.

I was rushed, since my wife was waiting for me, and had not saved any of these turns, so I can't give a careful report, but I noticed two disturbing things:

First, the Union army besieging Ft Henry was rated "Eng adv: terrible" and "Art adv: terrible." How could the Union AI not have prepared its army for sieges?

Second, the Army of the Potomac was commanded by a two-star general (Reno) accompanied by two one-stars. The Western army was commanded by a one-star general (Doubleday). How could the Union AI not have promoted generals and put them into proper charge?

[General Quarters]

The Virginia theatre:

I was concerned when I first saw the Virginia portion of the map and subsequent gameplay has validated my concern.

In my view, any strategic Civil War game has to make smaller provinces in Virginia than elsewhere. Armies in Virginia as well as the West maneuvered, but they maneuvered over a smaller area.

As the game is now, there are very few viable approaches to Richmond. It is not clear to me that there is more than one: Fredericksburg, which a Union has no chance to conquer before Lee's army shows up. Rappa is a theoretical possibility, but you have to haul the whole army there and then you risk its destruction. Is Shenan a possibility? The only time I tried it and went on to Lynchburg, my supplies started drying up, so it may be beyond the Union supply perimeter. That is probably historical, since there is no railroad down the Shenan.

In short, there is very little manueverability for the Union. There was not a great deal in the real war, but there was some. There were two railraods going south in the "Fredericksburg" region, or the Union army could be supplied from the sea (without risking being driven into it) as Grant did in 64.

In case there comes a time a map change is possible, I would suggest dividing Fred into three provinces, one at the top (Manassas) and then both a southeast and a southwest portion, representing the two railroad approaches. Rappa should be divided into a part that could be approached by land and another (Penin) that required a landing. Shenan should remain one province so that it retains its character as a dagger poised at the heart of the Union.

[silber]

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.

I would argue the reverse. Southern troop quality was at least as good as Northern, and their overall morale was probably better. They didn't have the short-term enlistments and drafts, and Southern units seem to show great resiliancy on campaign (suffering less attrition and desertion.) On the battlefield, there probably isn't quite as much difference, but Southern units should probably reflect the greater unit cohesion within their regiments. (The South raised new regiments rather then reinforce the old ones, this led to small, but veteran units. The North replaced losses, which led to larger, but less experienced regiments. Southern Brigades might be larger, but that is due to having a lot more regiments.)

In practice, Southern troops were very often ill-shod, ill-clothed, ill-equipped, and on the borderline of starvation, so their actual utility on the battlefield might not be better than that of Union troops, especially by 1864.

As to leadership, I think that this is one of the great myths of the Civil War. The South certainly had some great leaders, but they also had some reall doofuses, many of them commanding armies in the field. Joseph Johnston, who never won a major campaign, Braxton Bragg, who lost a few, and my favorite, John Bell Hood, who lost two armies due to over-aggressiveness. I think that the "second-tier" of Confederate generals was far inferior to the second-tier of Union Generals, particularly by 1864 when Sheridan, George Thomas, and Sherman had all been given Army-level commands.

[silber]

Oops, got things turned around. It was the North which tended to raise new regiments, rather than the South.

[Artmiser]

Gil did you get my email?
 
And on the subject of camps, I would say cap it at 10k for the south and 5k for the north.   The north built more regiments with its manpower and the south reinforced its excisting ones. 

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Gil did you get my email?

No, I didn't. Perhaps try a p.m.

[General Quarters]

The AI fortifying captured provinces:

I've been playing a quick game as the Confeds against a souped-up Union, just to see what the AI does. It beat Lee in Fredericksburg, quickly reduced the forts, and then moved on to Petersburg. However, it failed to leave units in the forts in Fredricksburg, so Lee was able to immediately retake it. I believe that other times it has left troops in forts in areas it has conquered. It should probably do that every time, automatically.

[Mike Scholl]

"As to leadership, I think that this is one of the great myths of the Civil War. The South certainly had some great leaders, but they also had some reall doofuses, many of them commanding armies in the field. Joseph Johnston, who never won a major campaign, Braxton Bragg, who lost a few, and my favorite, John Bell Hood, who lost two armies due to over-aggressiveness. I think that the "second-tier" of Confederate generals was far inferior to the second-tier of Union Generals, particularly by 1864 when Sheridan, George Thomas, and Sherman had all been given Army-level commands. "


I would have to agree with this overall (though "real doofuses" were common on both sides), but I would strongly dissagree with your assessment of Joe Johnston. All of his opponants had real problems and struggles against him..., and while he never "pulled a rabbit out of the hat" in the manner of Robert E. Lee, he never squandered the lives of his troops either. He seems to have been one of the first Confederate leaders to realize that with limited manpower and industry, what the South really needed to "play for" was TIME. He got to 1st Manassis on time to "save the day..., and didn't "get caught" when McClellan finally moved his enormously superior Army of the Potomac there. He got to the Penninsula in time to slow Mac to a "crawl in the mud"..., and when the AoP finally got close to Richmond he hit them at Seven Pines and brought them to a muddled halt again. His subordinates let him down there, but that happened to everyone. And he was realistic and non-egotistical enough to admit that the bullet that hit him at Seven Pines and led to Lee taking command was a good thing all around. No one was going to stop Sherman from getting to Atlanta eventully, but even Sherman gave Johnston high marks for making it a long slow and costly slog. And Johnston got there with an army intact and ready to fight---which Hood squandered and destroyed during his tenure. Lee, Grant, and Sherman respected him and his abilities as an Army Commander.., that's good enough endorsement in any book.

[chris0827]

John Bell Hood, who lost two armies due to over-aggressiveness

 
What army did Hood lose besides the Army of Tennessee?