Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[Mike Scholl]

elmo I'm operating on the (hopefully correct) assumption that the Game's Designers did do a substantial amount of research into the ACW before producing a game on the topic. In which case they should already have the "basically correct" balance of forces and economic outlook for each side. Unless you have some reliable information to the contrary, don't you think it's a bit insulting to the Designers to imply they need this information supplied to them by players?

You make two very valid points about how the design models (or totally fails to model) certain factors. My contention is that they already know these facts, but seem to have rejected them in their attempts to "balance the game". And that I think they would have done better to give such facts more credence in the basic scenarios, and allow players to do more of the "balancing" themselves.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

...Unless you have some reliable information to the contrary, don't you think it's a bit insulting to the Designers to imply they need this information supplied to them by players?

...

You misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough. I meant that if people are claiming the current economic figures are wrong then those people should put up the numbers to back up their claims, not that the designers don't have numbers of their own.

Horses come to mind as an example. Some people, I forget who now, have said the starting numbers for horses are incorrect. Yet I don't believe anyone has produced any numbers to prove their contention. Of course "horses" are not just literally horses in the game so producing numbers to support a change would be problematic without knowing what that term really means in the game.

I too recall a discussion about a more historical startup that was subsequently balanced for playability. If that historical scenario already exists then that should satisfy people who aren't happy with the current scenarios.

[Mike Scholl]

OK..., your statement wasn't very clear. As to help, if the Designers want to "put out a call for information on a subject" I'm sure they'll get plenty. I know I did when I was trying to point out that the South really shouldn't have a "Navy" in game terms. Some excellent information backing me up came to light from a number of contributors; and I understand the Designers are now seriously considering a change in an upcoming patch. So I'm certain they know that help's available if they want to ask.

[chris0827]

in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses.

See what I mean? Toss in the mules and the question is answered. Thanks, Chris...

[chris0827]

You can get the whole 1860 census online. The south dominates in asses and mules but the north makes up for it in oxen.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I would suggest they eliminate the refrences to the ACW if this is the goal.

The title "Redneck Rampage" was already taken[:D][;)].

[gunnergoz]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

You can get the whole 1860 census online. The south dominates in asses and mules but the north makes up for it in oxen.

I thought political commentary was out of bounds in the forum? [:D][:D][:D]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I would suggest they eliminate the refrences to the ACW if this is the goal.

The title "Redneck Rampage" was already taken[:D][;)].

Was "Jeff Davis has a Wet Dream" considered to risque? [:-)]

[Paper Tiger]

For me the game is better played on the richer economy setting, as this better simulates the strength of the northern economy and it's ability to out produce the south.
After the early turns the South is effectively then fighting a delaying action waiting for the extra VP's for survival to start eroding any lead the north can build up for taking cities. Also allows the north to build a navy and an army and to build enough seige artillery to make a dent in all those overstrength forts.
One thing I would say is that the north should gain national will for capturing cities and the south lose it, the north should also only be able to emancipate with national will over +3? and this should eliminate the chances of foreign MILITARY intervention (not economic aid).

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You make two very valid points about how the design models (or totally fails to model) certain factors. My contention is that they already know these facts, but seem to have rejected them in their attempts to "balance the game". And that I think they would have done better to give such facts more credence in the basic scenarios, and allow players to do more of the "balancing" themselves.

We should have provided two starting scenarios -- one with more historical numbers and one that was more balanced. In the game with the historical numbers, the CSA could barely afford anything, needed to rely almost entirely on impressments and blockade runner income to buy anything new. I personally liked that, but people who were getting into the game were frustrated to have so many options of things to buy but so few things they could actually do.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You make two very valid points about how the design models (or totally fails to model) certain factors. My contention is that they already know these facts, but seem to have rejected them in their attempts to "balance the game". And that I think they would have done better to give such facts more credence in the basic scenarios, and allow players to do more of the "balancing" themselves.

We should have provided two starting scenarios -- one with more historical numbers and one that was more balanced. In the game with the historical numbers, the CSA could barely afford anything, needed to rely almost entirely on impressments and blockade runner income to buy anything new. I personally liked that, but people who were getting into the game were frustrated to have so many options of things to buy but so few things they could actually do.

Welcome to "Jefferson Davis' World". I think the two "Starting Scenarios" would have been a wonderful notion. I for one, have no objection to players who want to "fantasize" the game..., and have had real trouble figuring out what they have such a big predjudice against including a "reality check" as an option as well. I wish you had had your way from the beginning..., this forum would have had a lot less controversy.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

With all due respect, just because you can't duplicate what happend historically does not necessarily mean the game is broken

Hmmm, if the historical reult is not possible, then the *simulation* is certainly broken. It should at least be possible to get the historical result, if not likely.

[chris0827]

Make the game as close to history as possible but add some scenarios for those who want a more balanced game. Have one where Kentucky and Missouri start as confederate states or one where Britain starts the game at war with the north.

[regularbird]

I think you should add the option that will allow the player to decide if kentucky goes union or confederate.

[tevans6220]

Sorry but I don't think balance should come into play at all. This is a game based on history. If it's not an exact simulation, it at least is supposed to represent the Civil War era. Balancing the game so that both sides have an equal chance to win simply makes it nothing more than a complicated version of checkers. The North and South both had strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses need to be represented in the game without balance. The war itself was never balanced. On the whole the South was always outnumbered on land and sea, always on the strategic defensive and never had the industrial capacity that the North did. Those things need to be represented without regard to balance. One of the reasons most of us play games like these is to see if we could do better than history under a representation of the same circumstances. There's no place for balance in a game based on history. History has never been balanced.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Sorry but I don't think balance should come into play at all. This is a game based on history. If it's not an exact simulation, it at least is supposed to represent the Civil War era. Balancing the game so that both sides have an equal chance to win simply makes it nothing more than a complicated version of checkers. The North and South both had strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses need to be represented in the game without balance. The war itself was never balanced. On the whole the South was always outnumbered on land and sea, always on the strategic defensive and never had the industrial capacity that the North did. Those things need to be represented without regard to balance. One of the reasons most of us play games like these is to see if we could do better than history under a representation of the same circumstances. There's no place for balance in a game based on history. History has never been balanced.

While I agree with you, I also know there a lot of player's who AREN'T interested in a totally "historical" game. I like the idea of the game including something for everyone's tastes, which is why even though I've always pushed for a "historically realistic" BASE set of scenarios, I've never been against the "optional" bonus features for both sides. Offering two BASE scenarios (one absolutely historical; the other filled with "flights of fancy" and "wishfull thinking") sounds like a perfect compromise for everyone. And both would contain the adjustment sliders for further "handicapping" to suit each "taste". I think Eric's finally on the track of the game we would ALL have liked to recieve in the beginning.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Sorry but I don't think balance should come into play at all. This is a game based on history. If it's not an exact simulation, it at least is supposed to represent the Civil War era. Balancing the game so that both sides have an equal chance to win simply makes it nothing more than a complicated version of checkers. The North and South both had strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses need to be represented in the game without balance. The war itself was never balanced. On the whole the South was always outnumbered on land and sea, always on the strategic defensive and never had the industrial capacity that the North did. Those things need to be represented without regard to balance. One of the reasons most of us play games like these is to see if we could do better than history under a representation of the same circumstances. There's no place for balance in a game based on history. History has never been balanced.

While I agree with you, I also know there a lot of player's who AREN'T interested in a totally "historical" game. I like the idea of the game including something for everyone's tastes, which is why even though I've always pushed for a "historically realistic" BASE set of scenarios, I've never been against the "optional" bonus features for both sides. Offering two BASE scenarios (one absolutely historical; the other filled with "flights of fancy" and "wishfull thinking") sounds like a perfect compromise for everyone. And both would contain the adjustment sliders for further "handicapping" to suit each "taste". I think Eric's finally on the track of the game we would ALL have liked to recieve in the beginning.

What's the point of basing the game on a historical era if the game itself is not going to be 100% historical? The whole basis for wargaming -strategic or tactical- is to put the gamer into a historical situation. I'm not sure this game can be all things to all people. What's the point of playing a Civil War game where both sides are equal? You may as well be playing chess or checkers. I think we need to know what the actual vision for this game is. Is it a historical game that puts you into the role of Davis or Lincoln and the historical situations they faced? Or is this game supposed to be a game based only on the Civil War in name only so as to attract the largest group of potential customers? I would venture to say that most people were looking for a good historical game. Not trying to be insulting to anyone but I don't understand why anyone would want to play a game based on history and not have it be "historical".

[Mike Scholl]

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? The whole basis for wargaming -strategic or tactical- is to put the gamer into a historical situation. I'm not sure this game can be all things to all people. What's the point of playing a Civil War game where both sides are equal? You may as well be playing chess or checkers. I think we need to know what the actual vision for this game is. Is it a historical game that puts you into the role of Davis or Lincoln and the historical situations they faced? Or is this game supposed to be a game based only on the Civil War in name only so as to attract the largest group of potential customers? I would venture to say that most people were looking for a good historical game. Not trying to be insulting to anyone but I don't understand why anyone would want to play a game based on history and not have it be "historical".

I'm repeating myself from another thread, but "WHY NOT BOTH?" Should everybody in the world be forced to eat only the foods you like? Now I agree with you..., I don't see the point of playing a non-historical "historical" game----but lots of people LIKED "Dungeons & Dragons" and other fantastic games with some "historic" flavor involved. And the more people that like something, the more games MATRIX can sell. And that IS their business... So can we please all stop shouting "My way or the Highway!" and admit that just because WE don't want to "play that way" doesn't make it "invalid" as a choice for others? Maybe not an "understandable" one from our perspective..., but I don't understand why anyone would want to eat a snail either, and yet some folks continue to do so. ( just write it off as "Great..., more Roast Beef for me!)

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I'm repeating myself from another thread, but "WHY NOT BOTH?" Should everybody in the world be forced to eat only the foods you like? Now I agree with you..., I don't see the point of playing a non-historical "historical" game----but lots of people LIKED "Dungeons & Dragons" and other fantastic games with some "historic" flavor involved. And the more people that like something, the more games MATRIX can sell. And that IS their business... So can we please all stop shouting "My way or the Highway!" and admit that just because WE don't want to "play that way" doesn't make it "invalid" as a choice for others? Maybe not an "understandable" one from our perspective..., but I don't understand why anyone would want to eat a snail either, and yet some folks continue to do so. ( just write it off as "Great..., more Roast Beef for me!)

Let me throw it back to you. Should those of us expecting a historically accurate game of the Civil War be forced to accept a less than historical game because development time was spent on creating "balanced" non-historical scenarios? It has nothing to do with forcing wants or beliefs on anyone else. The point is this game is supposed to be about the Civil War. An historical event. At this stage it seems the scenarios were created with only balance in mind and to hell with the historical aspects. Need examples? CSA navies and historical start dates for generals come to mind. You seem to imply that Matrix/WCS are so concerned about sales that balance took precedence in order to garner more sales. Read the forums. Most people anxiously awaiting the release of this game were interested in a historically accurate portrayal of the Civil War and not in something balanced to garner more sales. With the exception of a few games Matrix has made their reputation publishing historically accurate tactical, operational and strategic level wargames. I find it difficult to believe that they or WCS compromised themselves all for the sake of more sales. This game is very good but it's not very historically accurate. Thankfully it's fairly easy to mod to my taste which is also something those wanting balanced scenarios could also do. One last thing, I've played D&D and there's absolutely nothing historical about being a wizard. [:)]