Great game....I think.

[Berkut]

THe potential of this game is simply incredible, but...

There are some things I simply do not get.

1. WHy does the Union start with 6 armies, but nobody to lead them? And lets not even get started on the divisional commanders, of which the Union starts with none, although they have a LOT of divisions. Were these led by committee?

2. The combat in the PBEM game is...dissapointing. "Hey, there was a battle, you lost, and these are the casualties..." Hmmm, what happened though? These sparse reports makes me wonder what all those numbers mean in the contex tof PBEM battles.

3. The diplomatic model is...bizarre. Since when was diploacy done by investing a huge percentage of the federal budget in it? The actual results of the war itself do not seem to effect it, which is odd. This feels like a very tacked on, nothing to do with history module.

[jsaurman]

Well, as was discussed in the "Generals" thread, in 1860, the Union Army was only 16,000 men total, they were mostly out west fighting indians.  There were only *4* generals for the entire army, one was pushing 75 and was in bad health, one was the chief army doctor, and the other two were suspected of having no clue as to how to lead an army into battle.
 
So, Lincoln asked for troops, he got troops no problem.  He got 75,000 troops, then he asked for 500,000 more and he got that too, so in a year, the army had expanded to 36 times its normal size.   But he had no trained officers to handle this amount of troops, it was a difficult problem for him.  He had to experiment with different generals for about two or three years before he found the right ones.  Some were very politically connected and couldn't be fired or demoted without angering the governor of his home state. 
 
It was a tough problem for him, as it will be for you in this game.  You will have a supply of guys who SAY they can be your general, but most of them are duds or mediocre at best.
 

[Berkut]

Well, actually I do not have a supply of guys who say they will be generals - I don't have anyone at all. Or rather, I start with about 6 generals, most of which stink. That is fine. *Someone* was leading those units those - in FoF, they are apparently lef by...nobody.

And there was no such thing as the "Union Army" in 1860 - just the US Army. Every problem that Lincoln had was shared by Davis.

[Mike Scholl]

Good points. What the game is trying to simulate was the lack of "known quantities" among the Officer Corps of either side. You can assume that there are Generals in command of your units, but that they are "non-entities" who don't contribute anything positive or negative. What you as Lincoln or Davis are seeking is someone you know something about. It's an abstraction, but it does have some of the "feel" of a desperate search for someone competent.

And the South will have an advantage in "Generals" in general. Historically they turned up a few "gems" first, while Lincoln was still wading through "political hacks" trying to gain notoriety so they could run for Governor or President. Not that the South didn't have their share of morons, but they "got a break" early and in the East where most attemtion was centered. The Union's "good fortune" turned up primarily in the West (and afloat, which the game ignores).

Probably the most accurate way of playing is with "random and unknown stats" for officers..., but then you also turn up the chance that Robert E Lee (or insert your favorite) might be a total buffoon. That can be more than some players want to deal with.

[Alan_Bernardo]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

THe potential of this game is simply incredible, but...

There are some things I simply do not get.

1. WHy does the Union start with 6 armies, but nobody to lead them? And lets not even get started on the divisional commanders, of which the Union starts with none, although they have a LOT of divisions. Were these led by committee?

This has been mentioned before, and relates to this lack of generals in the North, historically.

2. The combat in the PBEM game is...dissapointing. "Hey, there was a battle, you lost, and these are the casualties..." Hmmm, what happened though? These sparse reports makes me wonder what all those numbers mean in the contex tof PBEM battles.

I can understand this. Maybe in an upcoming patch Matrix will give the user more details, which would still only deal with casuality rates but would be more specific. Are you looking for something more, like "The 18th Infantry, hiding on a reverse slope, surprised the South's Cavalry charge. The southern armies had to regroup but in the end had the numbers to win decisively."?

3. The diplomatic model is...bizarre. Since when was diploacy done by investing a huge percentage of the federal budget in it? The actual results of the war itself do not seem to effect it, which is odd. This feels like a very tacked on, nothing to do with history module.

Some time had to be invested in trying to get the Europeans to act in a certain way. And since to many time is money, it seems like a decent model to me. I'll admit, the cost is a bit disproportinate and could be tweaked, but I'm not bothered by it.

Alanb

[ericbabe]

Thanks for the kind words.

We've been discussing adding either a replay to pbem (a lot of work) or else more reports (less work).  Combat reports could give round-by-round summaries of battle ("Round 3: US Infantry cause 1700 casualties, take 1500 casualties, 3 brigades rout"... that sort of thing)

On another thread we've been talking about simple ways to modify the diplomacy system to account for battlefield success/failure.  The system wasn't tacked on, it was present early in the design phase, but it was designed to be a simple system because we didn't think that foreign diplomacy should be a major or complicated feature in an ACW game -- we thought it better to concentrate our energy on other areas.

[Mike Scholl]

"On another thread we've been talking about simple ways to modify the diplomacy system to account for battlefield success/failure. The system wasn't tacked on, it was present early in the design phase, but it was designed to be a simple system because we didn't think that foreign diplomacy should be a major or complicated feature in an ACW game -- we thought it better to concentrate our energy on other areas."


Anything that can eat up almost all your "money" (and still not guarantee success) is unfortunately going to be a MAJOR feature.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Thanks for the kind words.

We've been discussing adding either a replay to pbem (a lot of work) or else more reports (less work). Combat reports could give round-by-round summaries of battle ("Round 3: US Infantry cause 1700 casualties, take 1500 casualties, 3 brigades rout"... that sort of thing)

On another thread we've been talking about simple ways to modify the diplomacy system to account for battlefield success/failure. The system wasn't tacked on, it was present early in the design phase, but it was designed to be a simple system because we didn't think that foreign diplomacy should be a major or complicated feature in an ACW game -- we thought it better to concentrate our energy on other areas.

What I would like out of a PBEM battle replay is

1. Some indicator of how the various factors that are important to the battle resulted in the outcome, combined with *some* (not much) of an indicator about how much luck played a part. I am thinking of War int he Pacifics combat reports - only not as painful and obtuse .

2. A littl bit of "story" - something to help me get my head into what just happened. Battles are what the game is all about at the end of the day, and right now it is a minor event in a long list of events. Heck, I get way more detail about who died in what garrison due to disease each turn!

As far as the diplo model, I agree that it should not have a huge effect on the war, but in fact it does. It requires a very considerable expenditure of resources. I've read a lot of histories of the civil war, and I do not recall many of them recounting the agonizing decisions made by Lincoln to buy more guns for some fort, or whether to increase Springfield production, but no, we gotta send those funds to the Brits instead.

I think I understand what you are trying to do with the diplomacy model, but to be blunt, I think you have not achieved it.

Some very off the top of my head ideas:

One of the primary things the union engaged in relative to Euro diplomacy was not diplomatic at all, but simply commercial. The Union bought a huge amount of war supplies from Europe (few apprecaitre how much money the Europeans industries made off of supplying the war effort), and would actually engage in buying up supplies at higher prices simply to keep them out of the hands of the Confederacy, who was also purchasing war materials. I can see how this could kinda be represented by the model, but only if I squint real hard.

Why not simply have resources available for purchase for each side, prices subjected to how the nations "feel" about the combatants, and the current status of the war? The South, of course, would then have to get their supplies back home...

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Alan_Bernardo

ORIGINAL: Berkut

THe potential of this game is simply incredible, but...

There are some things I simply do not get.

1. WHy does the Union start with 6 armies, but nobody to lead them? And lets not even get started on the divisional commanders, of which the Union starts with none, although they have a LOT of divisions. Were these led by committee?

This has been mentioned before, and relates to this lack of generals in the North, historically.

Hmm, that doesn't make too much sense to me - maybe there is a better answer out there already?

Either the North did not have all those armies and divisions, or they did and there was *someone* to lead them. The idea that they did have those armies and divisions, but nobody to lead them simply does not make a bit of sense.

Some time had to be invested in trying to get the Europeans to act in a certain way. And since to many time is money, it seems like a decent model to me. I'll admit, the cost is a bit disproportinate and could be tweaked, but I'm not bothered by it.

Alanb

It bothers me because I like games like this in large part because I like the "story" that they tell. And when there is a system that I find grossly out of whack iwht how things worked, it kind of ruins the sotry for me. I don't want my game to be a slave to what actually happened, but I do hope that it will reflect the system in place at the time. And I do not think the diplomacy model reflects anything like middle 19th century foreign relations.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Good points. What the game is trying to simulate was the lack of "known quantities" among the Officer Corps of either side. You can assume that there are Generals in command of your units, but that they are "non-entities" who don't contribute anything positive or negative. What you as Lincoln or Davis are seeking is someone you know something about. It's an abstraction, but it does have some of the "feel" of a desperate search for someone competent.

And the South will have an advantage in "Generals" in general. Historically they turned up a few "gems" first, while Lincoln was still wading through "political hacks" trying to gain notoriety so they could run for Governor or President. Not that the South didn't have their share of morons, but they "got a break" early and in the East where most attemtion was centered. The Union's "good fortune" turned up primarily in the West (and afloat, which the game ignores).

Probably the most accurate way of playing is with "random and unknown stats" for officers..., but then you also turn up the chance that Robert E Lee (or insert your favorite) might be a total buffoon. That can be more than some players want to deal with.

AHhh, I missed this.

Thanks Alan, I can see that. Certainly a reasonable way to look at things.

But...(isn't there always one?) - why have this database of tons of generals if we then turn around and ignore a bunch of them in the interest of sayiung they are just so-so and do not deserve representation?

Is a division without a general better off than a division with a poor general?

BTW, I like the randomized and hidden stats for generals. That is definitely how the gmae ought to be played.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I think I understand what you are trying to do with the diplomacy model, but to be blunt, I think you have not achieved it.

For what it's worth, my primary objective was to have simple rules and interface to control straightforward bonuses that were large enough to have significance in game-play. I still don't think that Civil War diplomacy is in itself interesting to enough people that it would be worth our effort to spend thousands of man-hours developing it into a robust system, but I can see tweaking it a bit to reflect some political/military conditions on the North American continent.

One of the primary things the union engaged in relative to Euro diplomacy was not diplomatic at all, but simply commercial. The Union bought a huge amount of war supplies from Europe (few apprecaitre how much money the Europeans industries made off of supplying the war effort), and would actually engage in buying up supplies at higher prices simply to keep them out of the hands of the Confederacy, who was also purchasing war materials. I can see how this could kinda be represented by the model, but only if I squint real hard.

Perhaps my intentions in regard to what diplomatic spending is supposed to represent aren't very clear. Commerce is explicitly included in the diplomatic section of the screen...each European power has a level called "trade" which is meant to represent what you are describing. In our rules, the US can spend money to deny European goods from flowing to the CS -- in formulating these rules, I had the sort of market manipulation in mind that you describe, which is why the parameter that governs this is called "trade". Perhaps by making the heading "diplomacy" we've encouraged players to imagine chests of gold loaded on to boats and delivered to Palmerston's bedroom, but that's not really what we had in mind.

Also note the weapon Support rule on page 155 of the manual.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I think I understand what you are trying to do with the diplomacy model, but to be blunt, I think you have not achieved it.

For what it's worth, my primary objective was to have simple rules and interface to control straightforward bonuses that were large enough to have significance in game-play. I still don't think that Civil War diplomacy is in itself interesting to enough people that it would be worth our effort to spend thousands of man-hours developing it into a robust system, but I can see tweaking it a bit to reflect some political/military conditions on the North American continent.

One of the primary things the union engaged in relative to Euro diplomacy was not diplomatic at all, but simply commercial. The Union bought a huge amount of war supplies from Europe (few apprecaitre how much money the Europeans industries made off of supplying the war effort), and would actually engage in buying up supplies at higher prices simply to keep them out of the hands of the Confederacy, who was also purchasing war materials. I can see how this could kinda be represented by the model, but only if I squint real hard.

Perhaps my intentions in regard to what diplomatic spending is supposed to represent aren't very clear. Commerce is explicitly included in the diplomatic section of the screen...each European power has a level called "trade" which is meant to represent what you are describing. In our rules, the US can spend money to deny European goods from flowing to the CS -- in formulating these rules, I had the sort of market manipulation in mind that you describe, which is why the parameter that governs this is called "trade". Perhaps by making the heading "diplomacy" we've encouraged players to imagine chests of gold loaded on to boats and delivered to Palmerston's bedroom, but that's not really what we had in mind.

Also note the weapon Support rule on page 155 of the manual.

Yeah, I get that, but I think the numbers are just way, way, WAY off.

I doubt the Union ever spent an appreciable portion of their budget on these activities, certainly not to the extent that the spending was a significant detriment to other expenses - and they did get something out of it, so the NET balance of payments (ie funds spent over and above the actual market value of what was purchased) were almost certainly very small.

It strikes me as simply a way to "burn" a bunch of money out of the Union coffers. The Union doesn't get anything, they just keep the South from getting stuff. Whereas the South actually gets stuff for the money they spend. In reality, it was identical for both of them, with the notable exception that the South had to figure out a way to get the goods they pourchased through the blockade.

Said blockade not being in place in the game, so far, due to the Union lacking funds to build a historical Navy...?

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I think I understand what you are trying to do with the diplomacy model, but to be blunt, I think you have not achieved it.

For what it's worth, my primary objective was to have simple rules and interface to control straightforward bonuses that were large enough to have significance in game-play. I still don't think that Civil War diplomacy is in itself interesting to enough people that it would be worth our effort to spend thousands of man-hours developing it into a robust system, but I can see tweaking it a bit to reflect some political/military conditions on the North American continent.

One of the primary things the union engaged in relative to Euro diplomacy was not diplomatic at all, but simply commercial. The Union bought a huge amount of war supplies from Europe (few apprecaitre how much money the Europeans industries made off of supplying the war effort), and would actually engage in buying up supplies at higher prices simply to keep them out of the hands of the Confederacy, who was also purchasing war materials. I can see how this could kinda be represented by the model, but only if I squint real hard.

Perhaps my intentions in regard to what diplomatic spending is supposed to represent aren't very clear. Commerce is explicitly included in the diplomatic section of the screen...each European power has a level called "trade" which is meant to represent what you are describing. In our rules, the US can spend money to deny European goods from flowing to the CS -- in formulating these rules, I had the sort of market manipulation in mind that you describe, which is why the parameter that governs this is called "trade". Perhaps by making the heading "diplomacy" we've encouraged players to imagine chests of gold loaded on to boats and delivered to Palmerston's bedroom, but that's not really what we had in mind.

Also note the weapon Support rule on page 155 of the manual.

Yeah, I get that, but I think the numbers are just way, way, WAY off.

I doubt the Union ever spent an appreciable portion of their budget on these activities, certainly not to the extent that the spending was a significant detriment to other expenses - and they did get something out of it, so the NET balance of payments (ie funds spent over and above the actual market value of what was purchased) were almost certainly very small.

It strikes me as simply a way to "burn" a bunch of money out of the Union coffers. The Union doesn't get anything, they just keep the South from getting stuff. Whereas the South actually gets stuff for the money they spend. In reality, it was identical for both of them, with the notable exception that the South had to figure out a way to get the goods they pourchased through the blockade.

Said blockade not being in place in the game, so far, due to the Union lacking funds to build a historical Navy...?

Sorry to butt in here [:'(] but has this topic not been been beaten to death in the "Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch " Thread?

EDIT: Removed extraneous negative. Forgive me: English is my only language and it severely hampers my ability to communicate [:D]

[Mike Scholl]

"Sorry to butt in here but has this topic not been not been beaten to death in the "Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch " Thread?"


Apparently not..., there still seems to be a desire to "beat this horse's carcass" from any angle it can be approached.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"Sorry to butt in here but has this topic not been not been beaten to death in the "Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch " Thread?"


Apparently not..., there still seems to be a desire to "beat this horse's carcass" from any angle it can be approached.

Meh, I posted some concerns I had, and that one is the one people chose to respond to.

While beating dead horses might be annoying, attmepting to stifle discussion is much more so. If one does not find a topic interesting, or even over-done, surely the answer is to simply not discuss it, rather than actively attempt to stifle it. Maybe someone will have a new or different insight that has not been brought up before.

Electrons are cheap, we don't need to conserve them.

[General Quarters]

I agree with a point ericbabe made somewhere, that if that screen had been labelled "Trade" or something like that instead of "Diplomacy," it would have made more sense to people.

You could set up a sysem where, for example, 40 guns become available and each side gets to put in a bid, and the highest bidder gets them for that price. That would be more realistic, but eric rightly questioned whether that is what players of a ACW game want to spend their time doing.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: pompack

Sorry to butt in here [:'(] but has this topic not been been beaten to death in the "Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch " Thread?

Could someone post a list of topics that the forum police have decided are already covered and no longer acceptable topics for discussion so I can avoid these kinds of errors in the future?

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

I agree with a point ericbabe made somewhere, that if that screen had been labelled "Trade" or something like that instead of "Economy," it would have made more sense to people. That is simple but makes sense.

You could set up a sysem where 40 guns become available and each side gets to put in a bid, and the highest bidder gets them for that price. That would be more realistic, but eric also questioned whether that is what players of a ACW game want to spend their time doing.

Yeah, I don't think that is really the answer.

I understand and agree with what the designers intent seems to be - I just don't think the system as it stands achieves that, or even if it does, it does so in a manner that detracts from the overall game.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

ORIGINAL: pompack

Sorry to butt in here [:'(] but has this topic not been been beaten to death in the "Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch " Thread?

Could someone post a list of topics that the forum police have decided are already covered and no longer acceptable topics for discussion so I can avoid these kinds of errors in the future?

Berkut, you missed the point. There is a fairly extensive discussion of this else in a thread marked by the Mods as a request for suggestions. My point is that if you have something new that you wish to add, it is less likely to get lost if it is posted in the suggestions areas (where, in fact, you are listed as the most recent poster at the moment [:)]).

As to a list, I would suggest looking at the stickyed threads or the current threads with multi-page posts.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Berkut

ORIGINAL: pompack

Sorry to butt in here [:'(] but has this topic not been been beaten to death in the "Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch " Thread?

Could someone post a list of topics that the forum police have decided are already covered and no longer acceptable topics for discussion so I can avoid these kinds of errors in the future?

Berkut, you missed the point. There is a fairly extensive discussion of this else in a thread marked by the Mods as a request for suggestions. My point is that if you have something new that you wish to add, it is less likely to get lost if it is posted in the suggestions areas (where, in fact, you are listed as the most recent poster at the moment [:)]).

As to a list, I would suggest looking at the stickyed threads or the current threads with multi-page posts.

I've read that thread, and the discussion is not that extensive nor exactly the same.

And this thread isn't really about "suggestions", more about "Hey, here are some issues I have", Maybe I am doing something wrong? Maybe there is some reason this is working right, and I am not seeing it. A suggestion requires knowledge, which I lack about some of this.

But my point is simply this - all forums will always have issues that get hashed, re-hashed, and finely hashed, over and over again. Such is that nature of forums. Comments like "beating a dead horse" are usually reserved for people who are more interested in stifling dicussion than anything else, and there is no need for that. If you find a topic broing, then don't read it. It's not like there can only be one and only one discussion about some topic, and then for all time nobody else should discuss it.

Anyway, enough of bickering. The best way to end all discussion of the diplo model is to fix the existing one so nobody has anything to whine about, including me!