Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[Mike Scholl]

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?



Like I said, I agree with you. But it's fairly obvious from the original scenarios that the "design time" you begrudge has already been spent. Eric has suggested introducing a new set of scenarios just for folks like us who want history first and balance second..., and I think that would be just fine. You and I get what we want..., Malagant and others get what they want..., everybody gets a chance to "pursue happiness". What's wrong with that?

[jsaurman]

I would also like to put in my vote for both "Historical" and "Balanced" starting points.   It seems that the players are pretty much split 50-50 on that point, so why not do both?   I'm sure it's not that hard to set up.
 
JIM

[Sonny]

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.

The unfortunate part is that not everything can be simulated (i.e. historic) easily. When you add to that the fact that we know not to make the mistakes made historically any unbalance is magnified to the point that it is no longer even a contest.

[Mike Scholl]

"The unfortunate part is that not everything can be simulated (i.e. historic) easily. When you add to that the fact that we know not to make the mistakes made historically any unbalance is magnified to the point that it is no longer even a contest. "


Quite True..., somethings are always going to be "best guess". But we do have the Census Figures for 1860, and 140 years of research and writings, so it's not as if we were "fumbling in the dark" either.

[Twotribes]

Actually the South would gain the most from our hindsight. They made the most costly blunders early that with Hindsight a player would not make if he could avoid it.... things like firing on Sumnter ( that was what caused Lincoln to form an army) ( and with out that we would have a hard time deciding when fighting starts) Boycotting the sale of cotton in a failed attempt to blackmail Europe into aiding them ( selling it before an effective blockade would have greatly improved the finances of the South) Putting off buying needed manufacturing equipment from Europe until the "Government" was more stable in the south, again resulting in the need to run a blockade to get it ( and few heavy things made the run) Neglecting the Western Theater in terms of men and leaders util it was to late. The refusal of States in the Confederacy to release State troops to the Confederate Armies. And of course no draft because of the same problems.

The biggest glaring errors in the released version is the fact that the economies are to close to the same with the only glaring advantage given to of all sides the South ( horses anyone) the overpowered southern troops ( if they really were that good we would probably have 2 countries now) and the massive aid that Europe sends to the South. As I understand it it takes 100 points of some research for a level and I have seen europena powers send over 70 or 80 of one type on repeated turns even when most of the ports are blockaded AND support is minimal to the south.

There simply is no way the south should have the ability to maintain a close and in some cases superior level of technology across the board.

Those are the obvious ones and all are ( in one way or another) modifiable if you know where to look and what to change.

I would venture to guess that this game can easily be BOTH of the competeing games we all want. It would be nice if the designers provided scenarios of both but each player CAN make changes on their own. This of course would be a problem for email games. I assume both players need identical game files in all the files.

I will repeat my ENJOYMNT with the game. It is in my nature to complain, hopefully I do not make the people that put so much into this game feel that they wasted their time or i am not appreciative of their efforts.

[regularbird]

The south is just way to powerful in this game.  When you factor in the fact they get blockade runners, raiders and partisans it is even more so.  I like the game and I like many of the ideas and concepts, but it seems to me the south should be starting out making about 50 money, 15-20 labor, 0 iron and about 25 horses. the north about 200-80-80-25.  This is just guessing but I think it fair with the runners providing the rest.

Every PBEM game AAR the south has dominated.  I have played around with the difficulty and power setting but cant find the right combo.  Is there a way to mod starting buildings?

Oh yes there should be a cap on the amount of camps each side can have. maybe 20 union and 10 CSA.

[gunnergoz]

It is worth remembering that game developers have to make a living and preferably a profit too.  They have to generate income through their projects.  Matrix is well known for historical simulation games but they can do more of them, if they reach a greater audience and generate enough income to fund more projects.  Game playability versus historical accuracy is but one consideration in their minds, I'm sure.  They know that designing a game that can stretch to fit a variety of gamer expectations is one way to insure its success.  Yet there are limits on development time and resources, so decisions are made about what can be included in the initial release.  Matrix has a good rep for following up its games with patches and enhancements so I personally am not a bit worried about FOF's future.  If it is now not exactly what I want, I know that Matrix will likely get it there sooner or later.
If we as grognards insist upon "pure" simulations with no game play or entertainment value, then we indeed are giving our developers a very skinny carcass to cook, so to speak.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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?



Like I said, I agree with you. But it's fairly obvious from the original scenarios that the "design time" you begrudge has already been spent. Eric has suggested introducing a new set of scenarios just for folks like us who want history first and balance second..., and I think that would be just fine. You and I get what we want..., Malagant and others get what they want..., everybody gets a chance to "pursue happiness". What's wrong with that?

Now THAT I can agree with. If they can give everyone what they want out of one game that's great. I prefer balanced and whatif's. Never like simulations that much. I don't buy many games retail upon release anymore, but, I bought this one because of the "balanced" aspect and the south having as much opportunity to win as the north. Just with a Civil War flavor. So, I like chess/checkers

[Mike Scholl]

And I have nothing against Chess, Checkers, or "balance". They're just not my "cup of tea". "Something for everybody" just seemed like a perfect compromise..., which is why I was confused by continuing negative reactions from both sides. Maybe everyone is finally catching on that "them getting theirs" does not mean that "you can't have yours".

[Shoot Me_I Explode]

[font="times new roman"]I believe the destroy supplies option for Confederate raiders is far too powerful at times.  The ability to destroy 30+ supplies in a province that has an army in it can is capable of bring the supply for the armies division below the magic 5 number that will give it a real disadvantage in any battle if your opponent times an attack with a successful raid. On one of my turns in my email game with JonReb he got two raider units in a province where the AoP was located and destroyed some 58 supplies in a single turn. Either raise the damger % for the raiders or limite the number of supplies a raider unit can destroy to something lower then it is now.[/font]


[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Also why do the Confederates have a monopoly on the raiders?  From my limited knowledge of the civil war I know that the union also employed some very successful raiders that caused havoc in the south.  [/font]

[von Beanie]

I'm not looking for a highly realistic simulation, but in the "standard scenario" it should be possible for the Union to advance into southern Tennessee and down the Mississippi River before 1863. Shiloh occurred within 25 miles of the Mississippi state border in April, 1862.

I empathize with those southern sympathizers that expect a "fun" game, but if a game never comes close to reproducing what actually happened, then something is wrong. The disillusionment I'm having is if I manage to take Forts Henry and Donelson before the end of 1862 I am quite happy, but when I realize that they were actually taken by US Grant in February 1862, I feel like an incompetent. I'm not certain the game mechanics allow anyone to take them this quickly. And in real life they were defended by more than ten thousand CSA troops that would definitely slow things down in game terms.

Perhaps if the turns represent a week (rather than 1/2 of a month) the present game timeline might become more realistic.

Just as important is the inactivity of both sides in northern Virginia. I'm not sure my suggestion is even possible (see below), but as it currently stands neither side has any incentive to do battle there in 1862 as happened in real life.

(Here's one idea to correct some of these problems: similar to one of Avalon Hill's old Russian front games, perhaps in January of each year each side would be forced to select one target from a list of three or four for that year. The lists would be known to both sides and involve attainable objectives, but the selected target would only be known to the attacker. Then, if either side takes their selected objective for that year they win if they hold it at the end of July or December. And if 50% of the objective list is centered in the eastern theatre then perhaps it might induce more activity by both sides there. As it stands, neither side has a realistic incentive to try campaigns like Lee's invasions of the north, McClellan's peninsula campaign, Price's 1864 invasion of western Missouri, or Bragg's 1864 Nashville campaign. And because neither side knows for certain their opponent's critical target, this design inevitably generates many feints and indirect maneuvers. In my opinion, an option like this would result in a more exciting game than trying to balance the forces ahistorically. And for play against the AI, the AI would always know both objectives, and operate to defend and/or attack them accordingly P.S. it seems like Wheeling is always the 1862 CSA objective--I'd just like to see it randomized more--and give the CSA a victory if they hold it at the end of July or December in 1862).

BTW, has anyone checked to make sure the first sergeant level is the basic level? I'm having an easier time conquering the south at a mid-level (colonel?) than on the default setting.

[mlees]

#1) In my opinion, based on about a couple weeks of play versus the AI, is that the CSA is a bit too strong, economically, than was the case historically. But I realise that the player may want to have "something to do, stuff to build", so for balance the CSA is given more resources.

I swing between "historically accurate" and "fun & balanced, you decide", depending on my mood that day, for my approach to gaming.

So I would recommend/support the idea of two scenerios being created, labeled "balanced" and "historical", as ericbabe mentions in post #71.

#2) RE: Union sea invasions. Not attempted much, as province control does not change unless that province borders another of your own.

Is it possible to make the ocean/coastal spaces flagged as dual ownership? (Might be the most simple in coding...)

Or possibly decided based on the presence of non-empty Fleet containers?

If both powers have a fleet container in the coastal zone, or if neither has a fleet container in the coastal zone, the zone is considered "neutral", or "contested"... but if only one power has a fleet there, then they control that zone as long as the fleet stays there.

This way, sea invasions may change control of the invaded province, as there should always be a fleet container transporting the invasion forces, and if uncontested, that "friendly flagged" coastal zone allows change of ownership of a province. This would make a recreation of the Union capturing New Orleans (and it's province) possible.

#3) In the standard game, the Union is so busy trying to buff up it's armies (to invade the south) and investing in infrastructure (and European diplomacy, if that option is used), that little, if any, is left over for the navy. Respectfully request a slight decrease in the cost of ships. There seems to be one decisive sea fight, then that side controls the seas for the rest of the game...

Either a straight cost adjustment (which would benefit both sides equally), or based on the number of shipyards that player owns, if possible (which would probably favor the Union, if my memory is correct in telling me that the Union starts with more shipyards...).


Thank you for your time. [:)]

[spruce]

hm, I'm surprised that you guys are overlooking the main imbalacing parameter in this game - and that's blockade runners. Those runners are just doing really imbalancing and a-historical things =

- they allow the South to go camp hoarding - any time - any day (if you get 100 extra horses each turn, that's quite a lot),

- those runners are ideal to "launch" the Confederate economy early game to become self-sustaining (mints and plantations and all sorts of cool weapons to chase off the yankee's). In 1864 my economy was so good - I didn't bother to use my blockade runners anymore - and I kept on getting stronger.

- they are a "stable" source of Confederate income - which they were not historically. It was more like a lottery and the lottery was getting harder and harder to win. In my 5 years of play, I lost one blockade runner and had to repair one runner ... and lost that runner late 1865. I think runners are the best investment in the game ... as the Union navy goes to max. 40% damage in the later game ... which is still pretty low if you take into account the South is making more then 100 gold coins profit each turn.

- there's not really any scarcity for the South - talking resource wise - you can get those resources always. The South even seems to keep the Unions pace - weaponwise ... due to all those weapon resources flooding the South.

conclusion = less resource missions for runners ... more gold missions - and lower success levels troughout the entire game ... and higher chance of getting damage - but lower damage early game. This should result in a more variable income for the South early game - meaning more scarcity in resources - so less camp hoarding - and less economical "prodigy projects" for the South.

Many of the imbalancing stuff come from these blockade runners ...

ps = I also feel that partisans and raiders are both taking a heavy toll on the union - they take a lot of weapons and supplies. They should be less effective I think...

[regularbird]

I agree, Runners should be restricted to weapons only.  How common was it for the south to get large shipments of raw materials.

[Hard Sarge]

Funny, I tend to park my runners, normally by the middle of 62, rarely lasting till 63, they are only good if the folks overseas like you, most of my games, the Union has the friends, so I pull my money and park my boats

if you want to camp horde, go ahead, but it is not needed, those resouces can be used for better things

[Hard Sarge]

like this

[spruce]

Hard Sarge,

I did exactly the same thing as you - the only difference was - I have to confess - that I had very good relations with the UK (at +4 to +6 until the Union emancipated). I got loads of resources from the runners and build a lot of mints, plantations in horse producing cities and camps. I did some camp hoarding, but not that extreme - and I too got good city development. I build zero mansions, and lots of plantations ...

I think blockade runners should get more money missions - and less resource missions like weapons, horses and iron. I think the runners shipped out cotton to get money - an sometimes there were resources - but I feel like in my CSA game I don't run into scarcity from 1863 on and that's a bit ahistorical...

tough might be related to my good relations with the UK until june 1862 ...

[Mike Scholl]

"I think blockade runners should get more money missions - and less resource missions like weapons, horses and iron. I think the runners shipped out cotton to get money - an sometimes there were resources"


Actually "Weapons" and "luxuary goods" were the primary imports of runners. The only use the South had for foriegn money was to buy foriegn arms..., so why bring back money only to ship it out again?

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"I think blockade runners should get more money missions - and less resource missions like weapons, horses and iron. I think the runners shipped out cotton to get money - an sometimes there were resources"


Actually "Weapons" and "luxuary goods" were the primary imports of runners. The only use the South had for foriegn money was to buy foriegn arms..., so why bring back money only to ship it out again?

like I said - ship out cotton makes money (all that cotton sitting in the docks is worth nothing), shipping it out is pure profit - and for resources, we can't hardly say that the confederacy has a shortage of resources. It all comes from their blockade runners. If you have 2 of them - you can fetch some extra 80 horses each turn ... this is tremenduous if you see that some cities are like producing only between 6 to 10 horses ... that's virtually a "doubling" of the confederate resources.

blockade runners are just brining in too much resources ...

the money bonus should level out tweaking down mints and plantations - which are another deep source of income ...

And the South can do some quite nasty things with that money - f.e. buy English weapons for troops, forts and ships.

[elmo3]

From McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom pages 378 and 380 on the blockade and blockade runner success:

"About 500 ships took part in the blockade during the war, with perhaps 150 on patrol at a given time over the four years of fighting. These ships destroyed or captured about 1,500 blockade tunners."

"...during the war an estimated five out of six runners got through (nine out of ten in 1861 scaling down to one out of two in 1865."

"They shipped out half a million bales of cotton and brought in a million pairs of shoes, half a million rifles, a thousand tons of gunpowder, several hundred cannon, and so on."