Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[Gil R.]

firwepoerjohan,
I'm glad you like the new, improved version of FOF. Regarding the resource development issue, you're right, except I'd point out that if you do reinvest those profits you won't be buying enough for your war effort. When I play the CSA, and I've played it in all three scenarios, I find that I can't build nearly as many of these economy-boosting buildings as I'd like, since I need money for all sorts of things, labor for hospitals, etc. etc.

I'd be curious to hear how the game goes with your modded version. Please let us know your impressions.

[firepowerjohan]

I have now been testing the game with my mod.

1) Buildings
These ones in Bldgs.txt I changed and roughly doubled the building cost of them thereby halving the profitability.


name money labor iron horses buildTime
Factory 0 45 30 0 4
Horse_Farm 0 60 0 0 4
Plantation 0 100 0 130 12
Bank 400 10 0 0 4
Mint 0 15 65 0 4
Mine 0 80 0 0 6
Iron_Works 200 200 0 0 24
Mansion 150 10 0 20 4

I played CSA and with these numbers I still got a great economy. I had like 15 factories and 15 mines and that is the key. Building plenty of those in the first 12 months is vital to success and enabled me affording loads of camps, RR stations and hospitals in 1863.

Maybe hospital, arsenal and especially RR station need to go up in price as well.

Still, one problem with this is that BANK now become a huge factor. With buildings having a 2.5% profit per turn and while CSA start with 4 banks and USA 9 banks they can get 4% or 9% pre turn in interest profits and that has to change.

One way would be to set "MaxInterestIncome 50" in Acwconstants.txt


2) AI:
Is the AI dependant on diffculty level? Its aggression?
I found in the normal patch that US navy blockaed my ports and that had bad effects on my diplomacy and runner economy.

SEA AI:
The beta patch AI SEEMS more focuses on hunitng runners but it does not spread out much and sometimes it gangs up (afraid of counters?) and just put ships in the ocean instead of blockading. In 1862 it had like 20 naval units outside South Carolina and my 3 runnders could freely collect their revenue elsewhere.

To me it should be 4 evident naval tasks for US navy
1) blockade port , most effective task early on
2) hunt runners , most profitable later on if CSA has alot of runners and when USA has alot of navy to fight any CSA counters
3) naval invasion , should be used from time to time
4) destroy enemy navy , need naval superiority

When US has huge navy they should be more aggressive and spread out more to get most effect. Only counter to this is that CSA can gang up on and defeat portions of the USA navy but US navy can then use strategy 4 at times and then switch back again.

A nice distribution would be that depending on the number of naval units USA has it gets different distribution between the 3 strategies (number 4 is just a temporary thing when CSA navy show up). Strong navy then you are going to have more % using strategy 2 and weak navy then you will use strategy 1) mostly, but there should be some random involved.

LAND AI:
Also in 1862 the US AI (owning fredricksburg) is more passive After a "On to Richmond strategy" in 1861 that failed, the East theatre US AI just sat somewhere near Washington and waited. Western US attacked Memphis and later on ft.henry plus ft.donelsson. USA held fredricksburg though. Not until I send great numbers of forces to Memphis in late 1862 it seemed to trigger them to attack and they took Lynchburg swiftly. I ofcourse lost, but next time I will be more careful. [:D]

There is a "AI_IdealOddsx100 160" in the Acwconstants.txt
Is that for the grand scale or tactical?
What I mean is, I had large CSA army group in North Carolina awaiting any US invasion in the East. Does the "160" means they need to have a theatre superiority to conduct invasions or is it more for closer distance (1-2 territories away?) and could that been why the USA did not even try to walk to Richmond until I went West?

It is much harder for CSA if the USA press on Memphis, Richmond at the same time since their numbers are greater.

3) Resource limits.

LaborCap 1000
IronCap 1000
HorseCap 1000
GunsCap 1000

I found those abit more fun and I did not quite understand the meaning having the previous low limits, especially CSA would have to throw horses away within a year

[christof139]

Ehh. I will make everything a bit cheaper, including weapons and ships and some buildings, and adjust some of the resource types used to buy these goodies. Being cheap is fun, and if you change the 'p' in 'cheap' to a 't', then you have 'cheat' and that can also be fun.
 
Chris
 

[ColinWright]

Frankly, I'd like to at least have an option to just have historical production and development (ideally, affected by gains and losses on the battlefield). I just don't see Lincoln or Davis or anyone else having much effective control over what was developed or not developed in the course of the Civil War.

Of course, ratching up the demand for guns, money, and troops should make the states howl -- but there's a certain air of unreality in building up various cities as if you're Joseph Stalin and this is the first Five-Year Plan (Chattanoogagorsk, Selmagrad, Raleighopol). Being able to choose between tactical developments is even stranger. After all, it was Cleburne who decided his division would be drilled to deliver effective, accurate fire, not some higher-up in Richmond.

[Gil R.]

Just to let you all know, I've unpinned this once mighty thread. It will slowly slip away to pg. 2, then pg. 3, and so on...

[dude]

... old threads never die.... they just fade away....

[Gray_Lensman]

Reminds me of the old game of "Hot Potato". Oops!

[Gil R.]

So what's this? We're treating this thread as a hacky sack, trying to see how long we can keep it up?

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

So what this? We're treating this thread as a hacky sack, trying to see how long we can keep it up?

Four score and seven posts ago
Our moderators brought forth in this forum
A thread conceived for suggestions
and dedicated to the proposition that both sides be equal

[:D]