Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[megalomania2003]

Given the number of posts, and the different opinions in those posts is it possible to see a list of changes in the new patch (from a developer)?

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Perhaps there is method to this madness. The Union took Richmond. I managed to retake it -- but is was not the same city. Previously chock full of productive buildings (including a valuable foundry and my own manufacturing center), most were now just smoldering ashes. The Union did not try to retake it. Maybe it wasn't worth it anymore.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
What's the point of basing the game on a historical era if the game itself is not going to be 100% historical?

Oh dear god, and here we see the disadvantage of publishing a game with Matrix... is this comment facetious or something? Of all the games out there based on a historical era, from Day of Defeat to War in the Pacific, how many are 100% historical? I would wager zero, myself, even those (few) where accuracy is the paramount goal.

If it was 100% historical than the CSA should lose every time, because, well, lets be honest, its a miracle they survived as long as they did, and they certainly had zero chance of victory short of European intervention - which both North and South themselves seemed to have realised. (and with the whole cotton/grain situation in the British Empire, the CSA leaders apparently grossly overestimated their chances in the diplomatic game as well). Maybe you'd be interested in a game as rigged as history had it, but I'm not.



That aside, I did kinda expect the Union to have the better economy in game, especially as the South have their ubergenerals and extra big brigades. So... my 2p :-


a) I do think the North's economic power needs to be upped. I've not noticed the North being hugely more able than the South in terms of industrial ability, aside from the South's iron shortage in the early war. Rather than tweaking anything in terms of price, may I suggest simply giving the North some more mansions? This would give the North more free building slots to be exploited, and, it seems to me, may simulate to some degree a large economy that needs to take a year out to gear up for war before it really starts roaring. It would also solve any camp issues, too, as the Northern player, if he so chose, could use that spare space to build horse farms. More space would give the player flexibility to do whatever they wanted, and hopefully shoot down a lot of the gripes here (eg, not enough railroad capacity, admittedly not an issue I noticed myself, all you need is iron after all). It's a nice, generic, all purpose upsizing of the Northern economy.

ATM it seems the main Northern economic benny thats been given to them is all those iron works they have scattered around the place, while the CSA doesn't even have one - but really, most of those yankee ironworks are superfluous, you only need, at most, 2, with a lot of mines concentrated there.

b) I wouldn't touch the south's economy myself, just make the north stronger, on the grounds that if you keep one fairly steady you'll be better able to tweak the balance than if you were toying with both sides at once.

...That said I'd cut down the research bonuses from Europe, they seem to be enormous - 70 plus research points every other turn sometimes - in almost every game I've played against the AI the CSA has been waaaay ahead of me technologically purely on the back of Europe.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
Perhaps there is method to this madness. The Union took Richmond. I managed to retake it -- but is was not the same city. Previously chock full of productive buildings (including a valuable foundry and my own manufacturing center), most were now just smoldering ashes. The Union did not try to retake it. Maybe it wasn't worth it anymore.

I see the Sherman approach to war has been coded...

[EUBanana]

Oh, and as an aside, I don't know the mechanics well enough to answer this myself - but is there a disadvantage to running lots of camps?  You get all these reinforcements, 'for free', in effect.  You don't pay upkeep on camps or anything like that, do you?

[General Quarters]

duplicate

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Oh, and as an aside, I don't know the mechanics well enough to answer this myself - but is there a disadvantage to running lots of camps?  You get all these reinforcements, 'for free', in effect.  You don't pay upkeep on camps or anything like that, do you?

I gather that replacements from camps are of lower quality (circa 2.5) than units you build from start (circa 4.0). There has been general agreement that being able to build lots of camps and have 20,000 replacements per turn is excessive and I believe will be addressed in the next patch.

[Bombsight]

Gil,
I have posted this comment elsewhere; but, this string seems more suitable to what I'm asking. The power factor in set up is capped at +3 for either side. At +3, the North cannot match the production ability that the Norrth actually experienced in the war. How about a mod to allow higher production capability for those of us that prefer a more historical game (not necessarily a simulation; but, a little more historical).

[Ironclad]

Its happening. The next patch being finalised is to include a more historical scenario.

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Its happening. The next patch being finalised is to include a more historical scenario.

Yea.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Its happening. The next patch being finalised is to include a more historical scenario.

Let's hope that means more than leaving out the rediculous Confederate Navy....

[Twotribes]

I really must protest again. By some reliable accounts the North had nearly 3 million troops under arms during the war. One can NEVER reach those numbers. Not even close.

This demand to cut camps, at least one wanting to limit the North to half what the South can have, to tie replacements to a miniscule population base as given by the game are simply wrong. While it may be reasonable to limit the number of camps per city, even using the population ( at max) to determine max camps per city. It is not reasonable to demand any arbitrary number be set, except as has been suggested, with a toggle to allow the player to build his own camps. Nor is it reasonable to tie replacements in any manner to a system of removing population UNLESS said population is going to actually reflect the reality of what troops actually were raised during the war.

Even then , why would that be appropriate? People keep insisting they dont want to be tied to only what happened in the war. Provide the accurate manpower bases with adequate regrowth per year and then at the level of historical numbers penalize the person that strips more manpower out for increased troop strength.

[Artmiser]

Just to give an idea of weapons smuggled into the south.

400,000 to 700,000 Enfields "reports vary"
100,000 Austrian Model 1854 rifles

Those are the big ones.   So over half of all weapons used by the south were smuggled in, probably another good chunk were captured early on.

The Confederacy MADE

Richmond Armory

Richmond Va.
C.S. Model 1861 Type I , Type 2 & Type 3
No. Produced : Approx. 15,000

Palmetto Armory

Columbia SC.
SC. Model 1842 alteration from smoothbore to .69 cal rifled musket
No. Produced : 3,720

Cooks and Brothers Armory New Orleans LA

Enfield rifled under contract with England
No. Produced :3800 to 4000


Fayetteville Arsenal, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Produced/converted about 10,000 Rifles.
Using captured parts and machinery from Harpers Ferry.


For all practical purposes the Confederacy smuggled or captured over 90% of all of its rifles.


Purpose of this post, smuggling was the life line of the Confederacy and should reflect it.
edited for my spelling heh.

[Twotribes]

However the South never was ahead of the North in any meaningful way on any facite of the war, yet as it runs now the South can recieve a tech increase every other turn if lucky because of the "free" gifts from Europe.

I still suggest that a cap should exsist on research grants from all european sources to the Confederacy. I would suggest never exceed 25 points in a turn and never exceed 100 in 6 turns,

As has been pointed out I have seen grants of 70 points a turn repeated 2 or 3 out of maybe 6 turns.

[Artmiser]

Ive seen that, just tie it to the difficulty rating.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

However the South never was ahead of the North in any meaningful way on any facite of the war, yet as it runs now the South can recieve a tech increase every other turn if lucky because of the "free" gifts from Europe.

I would caveat this by pointing out that if they were "never ahead on any facet of the war" theres no point playing the game, unless its WITP-like where you can lose the war, and yet still win the game.

That said I was expecting the North to outstrip the CSA pretty heavily economically, and that simply doesn't seem to be the case. The CSA economy is smaller, but only a bit smaller (what is it, 50-75% of the size of the Union economy I would guess?), and the blockade running and European gifts make it really the equal of the North almost. I would say.

[Artmiser]

Id rather have a cap on camps then reduce the horses. And whatever the cap is decided the North needs to be half that of the south. Historicly the South reinforced units, and the North just let the regiments get smaller and smaller.

[Artmiser]

What they need to do instead of increasing the Econemy of the South, which wasnt easy, to increasing the value of the blockade runners.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Id rather have a cap on camps then reduce the horses. And whatever the cap is decided the North needs to be half that of the south. Historicly the South reinforced units, and the North just let the regiments get smaller and smaller.

The north reinforced regiments too. Thay had the manpower to do both, unlike the south

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Id rather have a cap on camps then reduce the horses. And whatever the cap is decided the North needs to be half that of the south. Historicly the South reinforced units, and the North just let the regiments get smaller and smaller.

...thats just going to make the CSA even better IMO, unless the number of camps is really too small to refit your army (I think 10,000 troops a turn is a lot, myself, and you dont need a lot of camps to manage that).

You can't keep raising new brigades in this game, your population goes down if you do that, so the 'Northern' way of keeping troops in the field simply isn't viable. The South would be reinforcing their fewer brigades with camps for free, while the North would be destroying their economy and simultaneously blowing through vast amounts of cash and labour by raising fresh brigades all the time.