Victory Conditions discussion

[Erik Rutins]

I would also ask you how the July, 1861 scenario stacks up in your books? I've already got an updated version of that from the current testing build which looks pretty good to me.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
This is a matter of opinion and you're entitled to yours, but I don't agree that the conflict was overwhelmingly out of balance. Reading historical accounts of it, there were times when Lincoln was in despair, the Northern newspapers were in despair, the Northern generals were reviled for their lack of achievement, etc. If the Confederates had done just a little better at those points of the war, it seems to me the despair could have got out of hand and led to a peace settlement -- which would be a Southern win, in effect.

... and this is indeed possible in the game, but the balance is also there for the player to adjust to decide how easy or hard it should be for each side.

Erik, I agree that it's possible in FoF. I wasn't actually talking about FoF at all in the message you quoted. I was saying that a Southern win should be possible in any historically-accurate ACW game. I was replying to the notion that an ACW game needs an unhistorical boost for the South in order to make a game of it.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I would also ask you how the July, 1861 scenario stacks up in your books? I've already got an updated version of that from the current testing build which looks pretty good to me.

The numbers in the july scenario are pretty good. Too many garrison forces on both sides but the field armies are fairly accurate.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Erik, I agree that it's possible in FoF. I wasn't actually talking about FoF at all in the message you quoted. I was saying that a Southern win should be possible in any historically-accurate ACW game. I was replying to the notion that an ACW game needs an unhistorical boost for the South in order to make a game of it.

I agree with you here, if I understand your point. The answer lies not in giving the South uber powers (though it clearly should have an advantage in early leadership). The answer, I think, lies more in trying to reflect the maddening and often illogical constraints that afflicted the North.

I know folks here have me pegged as a CSA fanboi. Though I do prefer playing the South, it's more for the underdog role than anything else. My real admiration goes to Lincoln and his perseverance. Though Lincoln undoubtedly made many mistakes, his is one of those few instances in history where the myth roughly captures the reality. When I hear folks say that the Union should have performed better than it did on a macro level, I have to ask what human being existed then who could have done it.

[christof139]

I'm a Yankee Abolitionist in Detroit, MI and I play the South in a lot of games because it is generally, depending on the game or scenario, but not always more challenging.
 
Plus, I get a kick out of changing history.
 
The Punic Wars are also fun.
 
Chris
 

[Queeg]

I'm a Southerner who believes that, in the end, the Confederacy really didn't much much of a cause worth fighting for and that the North had a cause worth fighting harder for than it did.

[christof139]

Good statement. There were economic issues that also helped cause the ACW, but Slavery was the underlying issue, and without the existence of Slavery all the other issues would have been settled peacefully.

Many Blacks served in the Confed. Armies and fought. Much is being written about this now and in the recent past. it was covered-up after the war. Most Southerners didn't own Slaves and many were anti-slavery and realized theat institution of human bondage was on its way out anyway, but the wuestion was how long would it take to have emancipation.

Perhaps if there was not a secession, then things may have very well worked out much better in the long run without the war, as the war hurt the South well into the 20th Century, and the rotten Northern Carpetbaggers made matters much worse after the war.

Chris

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I agree with you here, if I understand your point. The answer lies not in giving the South uber powers (though it clearly should have an advantage in early leadership). The answer, I think, lies more in trying to reflect the maddening and often illogical constraints that afflicted the North.

Yes, I think we do agree on this. Though I'm not sure that the constraints on the North were 'illogical'. One of the main constraints, surely, was that it's harder to persuade people to fight and die to attack someone else than it is to persuade them to do the same in defence of their own territory.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I'm a Southerner who believes that, in the end, the Confederacy really didn't much much of a cause worth fighting for and that the North had a cause worth fighting harder for than it did.

Here we don't agree. The Confederacy had a perfectly respectable cause worth fighting for -- the right to self-determination. I think that's what it was fighting for. Slavery was the main reason for secession, but surely only an idiot would have risked his life for the institution of slavery. Only a small minority of Confederates even owned slaves.

I think most of them fought initially because they'd voted for independence and they intended to have it. Later in the war, and more simply, their territory had been invaded and to fight back was a kneejerk reaction.

I find it more difficult to understand the motivation of the Northern soldiers. In most cases, they weren't risking their lives to abolish slavery any more than the Southerners were doing so to preserve it. I get the impression that the main motivation was to preserve their country entire and undivided (regardless of the wishes of the Southerners). I can see why that objective might appeal to some people, but I certainly wouldn't risk my own life for it.

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: christof139

There are many problems with disease. One of them is that after the initial onset of disease, the troops that survive are not continually decimated in a major manner, but are continuously reduced in number in a minor manner, as some immunity may be built-up in the troops overtime etc. Also, troops returning from the sick lists would be continually returning to the unit. So, I just play without disease. Disease can make you sneeze, and I don't like sneezing. Achoo. See what I mean?? [8|]

I will try the disease-on feature in the future when the weather warms up again.

It would be interesting to differentiate what type of disease is affecting a body of troops too, as there were many types as you know, dealing out permanent and oft times only temporary losses to the troop strength. However, generic disease is also OK as you have it, since I don't use it anyway now, but may try it in the future.

The main issue I have with disease, is that it can stop an offensive cold (excuse the pun) and cause an army an army on the offensive to be routed. Currently, if your Army is on the offensive and besieging forts (say Petersburg) all of the hospital protection you have built up is useless – until you take the province. I’ve lost a game as the Union cause disease hit my army after the following sets of events: Beat the ANV in Petersburg, next turn besiege Petersburg & disease hits. The following turn city taken army of NVA attacks with my disposition low (no hospitals to raise it) and after having lost 25K to disease alone. The following turn, the ANV attacks again and kicks me out of Lynchburg, and the turn after that out of Fredericksburg. Given the size of the Army of the Potomac it usually has around a 33% chance to be hit any turn. I’ve had the same problem occur several times while trying to take forts in Fredericksburg.

The changes I’ve see with the medical attribute will help but I would still like to see Hospital Coverage in Enemy terrioty (may be at 50% or 75% effectiveness).

Rook

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: rook749
The main issue I have with disease, is that it can stop an offensive cold (excuse the pun) and cause an army an army on the offensive to be routed. Currently, if your Army is on the offensive and besieging forts (say Petersburg) all of the hospital protection you have built up is useless – until you take the province.

With the upcoming change to the medical attribute, this will now be something the player can control given proper planning and investment. Your other best defense is to pump up your disposition with high supplies before setting out from "safe" territory and to keep winning battles (easier said than done, oftentimes), which also helps keep disposition up.

Disease was a factor in Civil War campaigns, but I agree it should not generally be an overriding factor. I have not found it to be so even with the current disease rules, but I understand that it has been frustrating for many and I think the new rules will help significantly with that. A single brigade with two medical attributes per division will reduce disease losses for that division by 40%.

Regards,

- Erk

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I've been saying this for several days now. Apart from some necessary fixes (eliminating the CSA navy, etc.), the real debate here boils down to the question of whether the base scenario should be "historical" (assuming any consensus can be reached as to what that means) with settings to tweak toward balance or balanced with settings to tweak toward "historical." My position: There is no universal law of game design that mandates one approach over the other and, in reality, it doesn't matter much so long as the settings cover the spectrum. Frankly, if we all had spent a fraction of the time and energy we've used debating the setup issue to actually exploring the settings and their effects, we'd have a much better handle on the game and its potential.

It would definitely be helpful to have people who have been playing modded games to give input on which settings work and which don't. We want to have the next patch include the "historical" economies as a scenario, but really would like input on what such a scenario would look like. We're too busy at this point to do extensive research on this ourselves (without delaying the patch), so your collective, specific suggestions are most welcome.

[regularbird]

Gil, I am playing a game I modded to really weaken the CSA, 60gold, 30lab, 10iron and 25horses and reduced research by about 70%. Playing the CSA on 1st sgt level and giving the USA+3, I am in spring 62. I had a couple of big scrapes early and now the USA is only coming at me a division or brigade at a time and I am whipping him good. I am wanting to finish this before posting any reccomendations, but as it is right now If the USA AI is going to play this poorly the game will not be worth continuing for me. I am hoping it will get a little more aggressive in 63.

Regards,

RB

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

It would definitely be helpful to have people who have been playing modded games to give input on which settings work and which don't. We want to have the next patch include the "historical" economies as a scenario, but really would like input on what such a scenario would look like. We're too busy at this point to do extensive research on this ourselves (without delaying the patch), so your collective, specific suggestions are most welcome.

I would recommend giving the Union three barracks in Harrisburg and the SCSA three in Richmond, this allows either side start with the ability to field corps and armies in the July Scenario and bring them into play by November.

Rook

[Berkut]

RB, get into a PBEM game, once the patch is released.

Once you play against a person, you will wonder why you ever bothered messing with the AI.

[regularbird]

Berkut, I am playing a PBEM with my cousin right now. The problem I find with PBEM is that we have played 1 full turn in the last 3 days. That sucks. I have a couple hours each night to play and I want to get in and play. Hard to do that in a PBEM format.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: regularbird
Berkut, I am playing a PBEM with my cousin right now. The problem I find with PBEM is that we have played 1 full turn in the last 3 days. That sucks. I have a couple hours each night to play and I want to get in and play. Hard to do that in a PBEM format.

True, the trouble with human opponents is that you have to wait for them. You could look for a faster-playing opponent; or play several games at once against different opponents, to keep yourself busy.